Syria

[ShiftingGears]

Looks like the US just cannot wait to start another war. Great.

US forces 'ready to go' for Syria action: US defence chief Chuck Hagel (http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-forces-ready-to-go-for-syria-action-us-defence-chief-chuck-hagel-20130828-2soxz.html)

[555-04Q2]

As they say, here we go again...

[Rudy Tamasz]

Another case of democracy promotion waiting to happen...

[555-04Q2]

Captain America to the rescue! :p :

[BleAivano]

Another case of democracy promotion waiting to happen...

yeah "democracy" by UAV's. :rolleyes:

[Malbec]

Looks like the US just cannot wait to start another war. Great.


I think the opposite. The UK and US could both have intervened over a year ago when the Syrian government started killing its own civilians, using artillery and tanks on them which would have fulfilled the criteria set for intervention in Libya where action took place within weeks of the fighting erupting.

They haven't been able to agree on even supplying weapons to the opposition until very recently, hardly the sign of countries that are itching to go to war. On that front they have been far far less belligerent than Iran which has sent men and weapons to bolster Assad, Russia which has sent weapons or Turkey and Qatar which have assisted the rebels.

Both the UK and US made it clear that they would regard chemical weapons use as a red line but didn't specify what they would do in case that line was crossed. Neither government thought the Syrians would be stupid enough to use them unless they were about to lose, in which case western intervention wouldn't be necessary anyway. We've had evidence before now that the Syrian government used chemical weapons and both the UK and US made excuses and prevaricated on any response to avoid getting involved.

The attack last week was too large scale for the US and the UK to ignore, whats the point of setting a red line if you don't act when its crossed? The question here is exactly how stupid the Syrian government have to be to do the one thing to directly provoke Western intervention when the West has made it clear they don't want to get involved.

The UK and US will launch a few missiles to rap the Syrians over the knuckles but nothing too serious or that will affect the outcome of the war.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Syrian government started killing its own civilians, using artillery and tanks on them

Your definition of civilians seems to be a little bit broader than mine. I don't include militants in that category.


We've had evidence before now that the Syrian government used chemical weapons and both the UK and US made excuses and prevaricated on any response to avoid getting involved.

The information that I have seen suggests otherwise.
UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html)

I really would like to see hard evidence pointing at the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. I would also like this evidence to comply with the basic requirements of validity that would allow it to be legally used in a U.S. or UK court. Would it be too much to ask for?

[Malbec]

Your definition of civilians seems to be a little bit broader than mine. I don't include militants in that category.

My definition of civilians is unarmed non-combatants.

Cast your mind back to the Libyan revolution. At the same time as the Libyans rose up there were mass demonstrations across Syria against the regime there. These were put down by the military using tanks/artillery. This kind of brutality was at or above the same level as that used by Gadaffi, except that in Libya the opposition used force from the very beginning.

The establishment of the FSA and the influx of foreign militants came in response to the government crackdown. Indeed the latter was only possible once the government lost control of its borders in some areas subsequent to the establishment of the FSA.

In Libya government military action was used as the trigger for Western intervention. In Syria the same level of violence used against unarmed demonstrations did not trigger the same Western response, not surprising given how much more difficult military action against Syria would be.

If the US or the UK was so keen to start a war they wouldn't have waited this long. Using recent intervention in Libya, Mali or Sierra Leone as a guide both countries had sufficient pretext to get troops in on the ground if they wished over a year ago. They didn't, so the assertion that the US and UK are itching to go to war is misplaced.


The information that I have seen suggests otherwise.
UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html)

I really would like to see hard evidence pointing at the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. I would also like this evidence to comply with the basic requirements of validity that would allow it to be legally used in a U.S. or UK court. Would it be too much to ask for?

The use of chemical weapons by the rebels cannot be excluded as only the use of chemical weapons can be proven, not the user. However one thing all parties have agreed on so far is that the Syrian army has done a good job of keeping both stockpiles of chemical weapons and production facilities out of rebel hands. This makes it far less likely that the chemical weapons were used by the rebels.

Had they let them fall into rebel hands that would have been another pretext for intervention if only to keep chemical weapons away from jihadists.

[Starter]

Looks like the US just cannot wait to start another war. Great.

US forces 'ready to go' for Syria action: US defence chief Chuck Hagel (http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-forces-ready-to-go-for-syria-action-us-defence-chief-chuck-hagel-20130828-2soxz.html)
I know you're pleased to have yet another opportunity to rag on America.

Perhaps you'd care to explain what your solution to the use of chemical weapons, no matter who used them, would be? Maybe just let the arabs have at each other? Of course if chemical weapons are used with impunity then the use of nukes can't be far behind. Perhaps that's the solution you're searching for?

[555-04Q2]

Your definition of civilians seems to be a little bit broader than mine. I don't include militants in that category.



The information that I have seen suggests otherwise.
UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html)

I really would like to see hard evidence pointing at the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. I would also like this evidence to comply with the basic requirements of validity that would allow it to be legally used in a U.S. or UK court. Would it be too much to ask for?

I was listening to the report from the UN envoy on the radio and they are now questioning who actually used the CW's. Seems that no one is sure who actually launched the attack. Speculation is that the rebels did it to get Western Forces involved to take out the Syrian Government. Time will tell...

[555-04Q2]

Perhaps you'd care to explain what your solution to the use of chemical weapons, no matter who used them, would be? Maybe just let the arabs have at each other? Of course if chemical weapons are used with impunity then the use of nukes can't be far behind. Perhaps that's the solution you're searching for?

I don't think anyone would want chemical warfare to go unchecked, but before the world starts blasting the cr@p out of Syria, it may be advisable to find out if indeed it was the Syrian Government or the rebels that launched the CW attack. Once that is confirmed the right decisions can be made as to how to act against the guilty party.

My concern, and I think many will have the same concern, is that the West gets hot fingers before all the evidence is looked at and confirmed. We don't need another Iraq.

[Starter]

I don't think anyone would want chemical warfare to go unchecked, but before the world starts blasting the cr@p out of Syria, it may be advisable to find out if indeed it was the Syrian Government or the rebels that launched the CW attack.
I agree with that completely. When the truth is out, the west should give full support to the side which did NOT use them - no matter which side that is. There should be heavy consequences for the use of those weapons and a VERY strong incentive for no one else to consider their use in the future.

Having said that, the very firm message coming from the US government is that Assad's side was the culprit. And we all know how much those assurances from high levels in the US government are worth at certain times. A lie from the Obama administration of the magnitude of Bush's should be grounds for impeachment. Given Obama's record of hands off Syria previous to this and his reluctance for action against Iran's nuclear program, it tends to give me more confidence that the assessment of Syrian government use is correct. Not to mention that access to chemical weapons and their delivery systems is much more probable for the Syrian government than the rebels.

[555-04Q2]

I agree with that completely. When the truth is out, the west should give full support to the side which did NOT use them - no matter which side that is. There should be heavy consequences for the use of those weapons and a VERY strong incentive for no one else to consider their use in the future.

Having said that, the very firm message coming from the US government is that Assad's side was the culprit. And we all know how much those assurances from high levels in the US government are worth at certain times. A lie from the Obama administration of the magnitude of Bush's should be grounds for impeachment. Given Obama's record of hands off Syria previous to this and his reluctance for action against Iran's nuclear program, it tends to give me more confidence that the assessment of Syrian government use is correct. Not to mention that access to chemical weapons and their delivery systems is much more probable for the Syrian government than the rebels.

I agree with your sentiments :up:

Problem is, if we find out the real culprit is in fact the Syrian Government, they publicly stated that they have a surprise for anyone that attempts to attack them. My guess is that is a veiled threat to use CW against any aggressors. Watch this space, we could be in for a hell of a ride here.

[Rudy Tamasz]

My definition of civilians is unarmed non-combatants.

Cast your mind back to the Libyan revolution. At the same time as the Libyans rose up there were mass demonstrations across Syria against the regime there. These were put down by the military using tanks/artillery. This kind of brutality was at or above the same level as that used by Gadaffi, except that in Libya the opposition used force from the very beginning.

The establishment of the FSA and the influx of foreign militants came in response to the government crackdown. Indeed the latter was only possible once the government lost control of its borders in some areas subsequent to the establishment of the FSA.

In Libya government military action was used as the trigger for Western intervention. In Syria the same level of violence used against unarmed demonstrations did not trigger the same Western response, not surprising given how much more difficult military action against Syria would be.

If the US or the UK was so keen to start a war they wouldn't have waited this long. Using recent intervention in Libya, Mali or Sierra Leone as a guide both countries had sufficient pretext to get troops in on the ground if they wished over a year ago. They didn't, so the assertion that the US and UK are itching to go to war is misplaced.

You line of reasoning brings me to a couple observations. 1) Those unarmed demonstration turned into a full scale insurgency, well organized and armed, way too soon; those demonstrators might not have been innocent victims after all. 2) There's a lot of talk about triggers and pretext, but there's too little said about what constitutes a legitimate reason to attack a country. 3) The standoff is that between a tough authoritarian regime and ruthless Islamic militants with blood on their hands running warm. I don't see which side Western liberal democracies can honestly and consciously support.


The use of chemical weapons by the rebels cannot be excluded as only the use of chemical weapons can be proven, not the user. However one thing all parties have agreed on so far is that the Syrian army has done a good job of keeping both stockpiles of chemical weapons and production facilities out of rebel hands. This makes it far less likely that the chemical weapons were used by the rebels.

Had they let them fall into rebel hands that would have been another pretext for intervention if only to keep chemical weapons away from jihadists.

That's a very inventive twist of logic, isn't it? Bashar is in control of chemical weapons, so let's take on him. Jihadists control those, let intervene anyway.

[Spafranco]

Although I never seem to agree with starter and he has me on ignore I must say that I agree with him.
The fact that we (US) is the lone superrpower now and I say that not as a boast but a matter of truth. We are the one's that people turn to for guidance.
Failure to find out who killed these people with CW is a must. Actions such as these set precedents if not acted upon immediately and with due force.
Already, there may be some other incident using CW by other countries in turmoil. Egypt for example. Bahrain is not as militant as others but it is another hotbed.

Israel will not wait long to act and if the US and GB show a unified force against any user of these hideous weapons then we will be in for a disaster of great magnitude.

[Malbec]

Given Obama's record of hands off Syria previous to this and his reluctance for action against Iran's nuclear program, it tends to give me more confidence that the assessment of Syrian government use is correct.

Precisely, and lets not forget in addition that France and the UK who are both looking at military action as well could both do without the additional and substantial cost for military action. Neither country replenished their reserves of smart weaponry after the Libyan campaign to save on cash so an attack on Syria will mean substantial financial outlay. David Cameron will be copping an earful from George Osborne over this attack as it will help tip the UK's state spending further into debt.

If Obama, Cameron and Hollande had their way Syria would just disappear so they wouldn't have to worry about it, let alone spending money and political capital attacking the place.

[Malbec]

You line of reasoning brings me to a couple observations. 1) Those unarmed demonstration turned into a full scale insurgency, well organized and armed, way too soon; those demonstrators might not have been innocent victims after all. 2) There's a lot of talk about triggers and pretext, but there's too little said about what constitutes a legitimate reason to attack a country. 3) The standoff is that between a tough authoritarian regime and ruthless Islamic militants with blood on their hands running warm. I don't see which side Western liberal democracies can honestly and consciously support.

I still see no strong argument from you to support the assertion that the UK and US have been spoiling for a fight over Syria, nor that they are interested in pushing democracy on the country.

In fact your posts suggest you haven't been following whats been happening too closely. To address your points:

1) I suggest you review footage from the early demonstrations regarding the unarmed protests. As for the quick development of a full scale insurgency take a look at a map. Syria borders Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey. The first two are awash with weapons that are easily shipped over the border into Syria with Iraqi militants only too happy to cross the border to fight against a non-Islamic government. The latter happily provided a base for training and replenishment for rebels. Factor in large scale army desertions by Sunnis and there you have an instant armed rebellion. I don't see whats suspicious about that.

2) The use of chemical weapons is forbidden under the Geneva treaty 1925, regardless of who its used against. The use of such weapons is casus belli. I agree with you that I want to see substantial evidence linking the government with the use of those weapons but as Starter has said the fact that Obama, one of the most conservative presidents in America's history with respect to foreign military action is now pushing openly for action leads me to believe that it exists. Ditto Cameron and Hollande.

3) Wrong. The opposition is made up of a largely secular FSA and also Islamic militants who are mainly foreign. Don't forget the former and there are already signs that the Jihadists are overstaying their welcome and being kicked out of certain areas by the FSA. The homegrown opposition are largely secular, like the government they are seeking to replace.


That's a very inventive twist of logic, isn't it? Bashar is in control of chemical weapons, so let's take on him. Jihadists control those, let intervene anyway.

If you think thats a twist of logic you don't understand the West's attitude towards Syria one bit.

Despite all the bluster about human rights etc etc the West only cares about one thing in Syria, chemical weapons. As long as they are stored away unused by both sides and safe from falling into Jihadists hands the West doesn't care about the place beyond the usual lip service humanitarian aid. If chemical weapons start being used on a large scale or their storage facilities become compromised expect rapid and strong action to prevent their proliferation. That is exactly what is happening now.

Now I'm keen to hear your explanation of why the warmongering US and UK have waited for far longer than a year before attacking the Syrians if that is what they were always keen to do.

[Rollo]

Rand Paul: Syria lacks security connection - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/rand-paul-syria-security-connection-96000.html)
"The United States should condemn the use of chemical weapons. We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement. The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress not the President."
- Senator Rand Paul, via Politico, 28th Aug 2013

Article 1, Section 8 provides that the Congress specifically has the exclusive power to declare war. There's also the 60 day in which forces can be deployed with a 30 day pull out period without without congressional approval.

Of course doing anything to Syria might be akin to poking a hornet's nest. I can pretty much guarantee that Hezbollah for instance would take US intervention as an offence and they're wacky enough to attack Israel in retaliation.

Even though the Arab League basically slammed Assad for the gas attack on Tuesday I think that's only them trying to take out political cover against a Sixty Batman Gambit Pileup - even Risk players know that the Middle East is impossible to hold.

[Starter]

Rand Paul: Syria lacks security connection - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/rand-paul-syria-security-connection-96000.html)
"The United States should condemn the use of chemical weapons. We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement. The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress not the President."
- Senator Rand Paul, via Politico, 28th Aug 2013

Article 1, Section 8 provides that the Congress specifically has the exclusive power to declare war. There's also the 60 day in which forces can be deployed with a 30 day pull out period without without congressional approval.
Out of all the military operations the US has engaged in since the end of WWll how many had a "declared" war? Whether anyone thinks it good or bad, it means nothing in reality.


Of course doing anything to Syria might be akin to poking a hornet's nest. I can pretty much guarantee that Hezbollah for instance would take US intervention as an offence and they're wacky enough to attack Israel in retaliation.
They'll get their butts pretty thoroughly kicked too.


Even though the Arab League basically slammed Assad for the gas attack on Tuesday I think that's only them trying to take out political cover against a Sixty Batman Gambit Pileup - even Risk players know that the Middle East is impossible to hold.
The Arab League wants no part of chemical weapons. That's a Pandoras box no one wants to open.

[Koz]

I was listening to the report from the UN envoy on the radio and they are now questioning who actually used the CW's. Seems that no one is sure who actually launched the attack. Speculation is that the rebels did it to get Western Forces involved to take out the Syrian Government. Time will tell...

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the inspectors already in Syria when the Sarin was released on the 21st, to examine other sites?

So, why would the Assad government use chemical weapons?
They have nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. So why would they do this?

[555-04Q2]

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the inspectors already in Syria when the Sarin was released on the 21st, to examine other sites?

So, why would the Assad government use chemical weapons?
They have nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. So why would they do this?

Not sure if the UN inspectors were there before the attack. Buy no one knows for sure who used the CW's. At the moment everyone is pointing fingers with no hard evidence yet as to who the real culprits are.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I still see no strong argument from you to support the assertion that the UK and US have been spoiling for a fight over Syria, nor that they are interested in pushing democracy on the country.

The West is paranoid about Iran and badly wants to get rid of the current regime or at least to weaken substantially. There's no chance to take on Iran directly as it is quite stable internally. Then the fighting will be done by proxy. Easy.


In fact your posts suggest you haven't been following whats been happening too closely. To address your points:

Fair. I don't follow every twist of events in Syria.


1) I suggest you review footage from the early demonstrations regarding the unarmed protests. As for the quick development of a full scale insurgency take a look at a map. Syria borders Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey. The first two are awash with weapons that are easily shipped over the border into Syria with Iraqi militants only too happy to cross the border to fight against a non-Islamic government. The latter happily provided a base for training and replenishment for rebels. Factor in large scale army desertions by Sunnis and there you have an instant armed rebellion. I don't see whats suspicious about that.

All I can say is that this is Middle East and the line between "peaceful" protesters and armed militants is very much blurred. Look at what has just happened in Egypt. On the opposite, Turkey is a good example of how people actually protested in a peaceful manner and were brutally dispersed by the police. Like you've pointed out, I haven't been following events closely, but I haven't noticed too much concern from the Western countries. I wonder whether the fact that Erdogan's government is a military ally of the Western countries had anything to do with that.


2) The use of chemical weapons is forbidden under the Geneva treaty 1925, regardless of who its used against. The use of such weapons is casus belli. I agree with you that I want to see substantial evidence linking the government with the use of those weapons but as Starter has said the fact that Obama, one of the most conservative presidents in America's history with respect to foreign military action is now pushing openly for action leads me to believe that it exists. Ditto Cameron and Hollande.

Sorry, but no court would accept as an evidence the argument stating than a certain side in a pub brawl was to blame just because third party observers, normally shy and disinterested, decided to get involved this time. And this is much bigger than a pub brawl. We need hard facts.

Speaking of why they waited so long, they clearly hoped that the rebels would take the upper hand without direct foreign intervention. That was not the case and they decided to get involved. That's the modern crop of politicians. They never lead. They follow the events and come up with pretexts and excuses.


3) Wrong. The opposition is made up of a largely secular FSA and also Islamic militants who are mainly foreign. Don't forget the former and there are already signs that the Jihadists are overstaying their welcome and being kicked out of certain areas by the FSA. The homegrown opposition are largely secular, like the government they are seeking to replace.

Anecdotal evidence states the contrary, but at the moment I don't have a sufficient evidence base to prove you wrong.


If you think thats a twist of logic you don't understand the West's attitude towards Syria one bit.

Despite all the bluster about human rights etc etc the West only cares about one thing in Syria, chemical weapons. As long as they are stored away unused by both sides and safe from falling into Jihadists hands the West doesn't care about the place beyond the usual lip service humanitarian aid. If chemical weapons start being used on a large scale or their storage facilities become compromised expect rapid and strong action to prevent their proliferation. That is exactly what is happening now.

Now I'm keen to hear your explanation of why the warmongering US and UK have waited for far longer than a year before attacking the Syrians if that is what they were always keen to do.

Like I said, it's all about Iran. For the Western countries, that is. But then, Westerners are being easily manipulated by their Mid-Eastern allies who have their own reasons to hate Syria regardless of Iran. 1) Turkey and Arab countries are Sunnis and they'd love to overturn the Allawi regime in Syria. 2) Most Arab countries are monarchies, who share hatred against quasi-republican regimes. That's why they let Saddam and Gaddafi go so easily. 3) The current Turkish government and most Arab countries are Islamic and hate everything secular in the Muslim world.

[odykas]

No lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Koz]

Not sure if the UN inspectors were there before the attack. Buy no one knows for sure who used the CW's. At the moment everyone is pointing fingers with no hard evidence yet as to who the real culprits are.

Ok, the UN weapons inspectors arrived on the 18th of August.

This, I think, deserves a lot of serious thought. Why would Assad launch a chemical just 3 days after the UN team arrives?
It just makes absolutely no sense. It is down right suicidal.




3) Wrong. The opposition is made up of a largely secular FSA and also Islamic militants who are mainly foreign. Don't forget the former and there are already signs that the Jihadists are overstaying their welcome and being kicked out of certain areas by the FSA. The homegrown opposition are largely secular, like the government they are seeking to replace.

This isn't particularly true.
The FSA isn't one coherent force. It is a very lose organization of regional elements, which has plenty of Islamic elements (Mulsim brotherhood comes into mind) within it's ranks and senior command, who will play along only as long as it suits them and their interests - the removal of Assad is the only thing they have in common.

The SIF, Al-Nusra and Mujahideen are all still in the tens of thousands. This isn't something that can simply be ignored. Especially when they are assassinating FSA leaders, and attacking the Kurds.



No lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think you have missed the point. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are a precedent here.
The lessons here, should be those of Libya.
Assad is actively fighting a revolt with the utmost brutality. Not acting here, however, does set a precedent: how can you legitimize actions anywhere for any reason whatsoever, if you sat through and let hundreds of thousands of people die in the name of "freedom and democracy"?

And most importantly, the inaction here so far has been due to the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan: Who comes into power after Assad?
No one wants the radicalized taking over, but removal of Assad now means that whatever civil infrastructure is left in Syria will disappear with him. No one can afford this.
This is why the talk now is of punishment and not brining down the regime.
Anything that may or may not happen now, will be with the strategic goals of leveraged negotiations at Geneva 2. And a gradual removal of Assad from power (months), while retaining as much of the administration as possible, for as long as possible(years). It is about diplomacy, not violence.

The longer the violence continues the greater the spill over, as we see in Iraq. Maybe Jordan and Turkey will follow soon. This is the real danger to the rest of the world.

[Malbec]

The West is paranoid about Iran and badly wants to get rid of the current regime or at least to weaken substantially. There's no chance to take on Iran directly as it is quite stable internally. Then the fighting will be done by proxy. Easy.

If reducing Iranian power is the goal (and I certainly agree its probably a motivation for the West) then the current status quo is the perfect outcome for the West. Toppling the Syrian government would be counter-productive.

What you want to sap Iranian power is an Afghanistan-like situation whereby Iran is left having to invest both men and materiel for many many years into a low intensity conflict in Syria. Thats exactly what is happening now at no cost to the West beyond looking after refugees in neighbouring countries. The objective of taking Syria out of the Middle Eastern political landscape has been achieved, they are far too busy fighting for survival to be causing trouble elsewhere.

But again there is NO evidence whatsoever that the West has been fighting a proxy war with Iran in Syria.

Time and time again you ignore what America and the UK have done in Syria so far because it doesn't fit into your picture of a meddling West.

For over a year America and the UK imposed an arms embargo on Syria that applies to both sides though a month or so ago they rescinded that. They blocked arms shipments to the government from Russia and to the rebels from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If you were right surely the West would be arming the rebels? Why haven't they?

War by proxy involves giving military support to the guys fighting the people you oppose. America and Britain haven't done that, they've stood on the sidelines


Speaking of why they waited so long, they clearly hoped that the rebels would take the upper hand without direct foreign intervention. That was not the case and they decided to get involved. That's the modern crop of politicians. They never lead. They follow the events and come up with pretexts and excuses.

Right.... So Obama and Cameron bombed Libya to do nothing? As an excuse? Or should we forget Libya because its inconvenient for that argument? How about Hollande sending French troops to fight in Mali? How does that fit into your view?

And your point again ignores the very simple point that the West did not take easy steps to support the rebels in the quest by supplying them with weapons or anything else that would actually help them win.


Anecdotal evidence states the contrary, but at the moment I don't have a sufficient evidence base to prove you wrong.

Contrary to what exactly? Are you denying the existence of the FSA, the Jihadists or the fact that the former is largely homegrown and secular or that the latter are religious extremists?


1) Turkey and Arab countries are Sunnis and they'd love to overturn the Allawi regime in Syria. 2) Most Arab countries are monarchies, who share hatred against quasi-republican regimes. That's why they let Saddam and Gaddafi go so easily. 3) The current Turkish government and most Arab countries are Islamic and hate everything secular in the Muslim world.

Re: Point 1, Turkey followed a strong Pro-Syrian Pro-Assad policy towards Syria up until the violence broke out, pushing closer trade and political links. That is not consistent with a country wishing to overthrow the existing government though they did perform a massive U-turn once fighting broke out. Secondly I wouldn't lump in all Arab countries together in terms of their attitude towards Syria as Sunni states like Egypt have had a long history of close ties with them (in fact they merged for a few years back in the '50s).

2) Fair point.

3) The Turkish government might be Islamist but are still profoundly secular in outlook and have withdrawn quite a few religious based laws (such as the death penalty) over the previous few terms. They have pursued closer ties until a couple of years ago with Israel and still pursue membership of the EU, not good for their 'Islamist' credentials wouldn't you agree? As for many of the Arab countries, the elite tend to be rather secular in outlook and I would include even Saudi Arabia. Take a look at the Gulf States and how they tolerate non-Islamic activities and behaviour including alcohol, or the attempts by the Saudi Royal family to push through reforms to reduce the grip of the clerics on their country. Again to say they hate Assad because he's secular is a gross over-simplification.

[Starter]

Whatever the outcome in Syria, and that outcome needs to include isolating or destroying any chemical weapons lest they fall into the hands of those who would not hesitate to use them, the real danger in the mid east is the looming war between the two major branches of Islam. It's been simmering in the background for years now and has recently reemerged in Iraq. That would involve a war with no borders or easy containment. And, since all the Islamic countries are not just in the mid east, could quickly spread to other places in the world.

[555-04Q2]

Ok, the UN weapons inspectors arrived on the 18th of August.

This, I think, deserves a lot of serious thought. Why would Assad launch a chemical just 3 days after the UN team arrives?
It just makes absolutely no sense. It is down right suicidal.

I know, it makes no sense at all, but...stranger things have happened!

[Rudy Tamasz]

If reducing Iranian power is the goal (and I certainly agree its probably a motivation for the West) then the current status quo is the perfect outcome for the West. Toppling the Syrian government would be counter-productive.

What you want to sap Iranian power is an Afghanistan-like situation whereby Iran is left having to invest both men and materiel for many many years into a low intensity conflict in Syria. Thats exactly what is happening now at no cost to the West beyond looking after refugees in neighbouring countries. The objective of taking Syria out of the Middle Eastern political landscape has been achieved, they are far too busy fighting for survival to be causing trouble elsewhere.

You forget one important thing. Wars are rarely static. They tend to be dynamic. These days they are also quick. The era of protracted standoffs like the Iraq-Iran war is gone. In the Syrian conflict one side was likely to start winning sooner rather than later. As Bashar's recent victory at Homs demonstrated he was gradually taking advantage. If he managed to crush the rebels and restore the control of the country that would be a major success for his allies from Iran and Hezbollah, that would send shock waves across the Middle East. In other words, the West would not be and was not able to watch from the side and pull strings. Once they were in, the had to keep making further steps.


But again there is NO evidence whatsoever that the West has been fighting a proxy war with Iran in Syria.

Time and time again you ignore what America and the UK have done in Syria so far because it doesn't fit into your picture of a meddling West.

For over a year America and the UK imposed an arms embargo on Syria that applies to both sides though a month or so ago they rescinded that. They blocked arms shipments to the government from Russia and to the rebels from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If you were right surely the West would be arming the rebels? Why haven't they?

War by proxy involves giving military support to the guys fighting the people you oppose. America and Britain haven't done that, they've stood on the sidelines

We don't have the complete picture as we don't know all the facts, do we? The governments of the U.S., UK and France have a long, long record of covert operations and they are not going to disclose all their actions in Syria to their citizens, are they? At this point I'm going to abstain from making a judgment because that would be based on speculations.


Contrary to what exactly? Are you denying the existence of the FSA, the Jihadists or the fact that the former is largely homegrown and secular or that the latter are religious extremists?

Koz made a good point on FSA.


Re: Point 1, Turkey followed a strong Pro-Syrian Pro-Assad policy towards Syria up until the violence broke out, pushing closer trade and political links. That is not consistent with a country wishing to overthrow the existing government though they did perform a massive U-turn once fighting broke out. Secondly I wouldn't lump in all Arab countries together in terms of their attitude towards Syria as Sunni states like Egypt have had a long history of close ties with them (in fact they merged for a few years back in the '50s).

The history of the Middle East is full of U-turns. Hug today, stab in the back tomorrow. It didn't matter much to the government of Egypt that they had been one country with Syria in late 1950s, when they decided to throw out the Syrian ambassador.


3) The Turkish government might be Islamist but are still profoundly secular in outlook and have withdrawn quite a few religious based laws (such as the death penalty) over the previous few terms. They have pursued closer ties until a couple of years ago with Israel and still pursue membership of the EU, not good for their 'Islamist' credentials wouldn't you agree? As for many of the Arab countries, the elite tend to be rather secular in outlook and I would include even Saudi Arabia. Take a look at the Gulf States and how they tolerate non-Islamic activities and behaviour including alcohol, or the attempts by the Saudi Royal family to push through reforms to reduce the grip of the clerics on their country. Again to say they hate Assad because he's secular is a gross over-simplification.

Like Aristophanes would say they are "lions at home and mere foxes in the field." They can spend millions of dollars on Western cars, clothing and accessories, and their princesses might start putting on jeans the minute when the plane leaves the air space of Saudi Arabia on the way to London, but at home they want that all Muslim nations stick to the strict laws of Islam, at least formally, period.

[Spafranco]

Well, today there is a article in the newspaper No OK needed to hit Syria, says U.S.,U.K.

[Malbec]

You forget one important thing. Wars are rarely static. They tend to be dynamic. These days they are also quick. The era of protracted standoffs like the Iraq-Iran war is gone.

As you yourself have already pointed out this assessment is utterly wrong.

You brought up proxy wars involving Iran, in the last decade we have had two key examples, Iranian backing of anti-US/Allied militia in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both cases the conflicts were not dynamic nor quick, in fact in Afghanistan the conflict is still carrying on over a decade after it started (and IIRC three years longer than the Iran-Iraq war you cite)! In both cases Iran sapped away at Western power, in Syria Iranian power is being sapped away. We could add of course another proxy-war involving Iran, that of Hisbullah vs Israel, a conflict that has lasted over two decades now. How dynamic and quick is that one?

I think you need to go away and straighten up your arguments really because you contradict yourself on a regular basis.


In the Syrian conflict one side was likely to start winning sooner rather than later. As Bashar's recent victory at Homs demonstrated he was gradually taking advantage. If he managed to crush the rebels and restore the control of the country that would be a major success for his allies from Iran and Hezbollah, that would send shock waves across the Middle East.


Again a statement made with little basis in fact. Yes after a long series of setbacks the regime has had some victories. However Assad can't even maintain control over his own capital. You do realise that the gas attacks were made on a rebel held suburb of Damascus that the Syrian military has spent months bombarding and attacking without success right? If the regime can't even call Damascus its own how can you then conclude that they are on the way to victory?

[Malbec]

We don't have the complete picture as we don't know all the facts, do we? The governments of the U.S., UK and France have a long, long record of covert operations and they are not going to disclose all their actions in Syria to their citizens, are they? At this point I'm going to abstain from making a judgment because that would be based on speculations.

Why is Syria different to Mali or Libya where special forces involvement was barely hidden?

Can you present one shred of evidence that the West have been actively supporting the rebels in Syria as they did in Libya or Afghanistan (back in the '80s that is), because all you seem to present are insinuations and suppositions that are openly contradicted by Western government actions.

[BDunnell]

Speaking of why they waited so long, they clearly hoped that the rebels would take the upper hand without direct foreign intervention. That was not the case and they decided to get involved. That's the modern crop of politicians. They never lead. They follow the events and come up with pretexts and excuses.

If so, good. I'd rather that than wading in at the outset, all guns blazing. How would you suggest the West should have acted in Syria in order to 'lead'? A ground invasion as soon as the conflict there started?

As it is, I struggle to see what the point is of our planned intervention, such as to make me opposed to the notion of it. What are we seeking to destroy? What are the terms of engagement as regards combat with Syrian government forces? What is the plan for the period after we have carried out the initial, limited series of strikes? None of this has been satisfactorily explained.

[Malbec]

As it is, I struggle to see what the point is of our planned intervention, such as to make me opposed to the notion of it. What are we seeking to destroy? What are the terms of engagement as regards combat with Syrian government forces? What is the plan for the period after we have carried out the initial, limited series of strikes? None of this has been satisfactorily explained.

I would have thought the intention would be to raise the cost of ever using chemical weapons again high enough that the regime would not attempt it again without ironically doing anything to damage Syria's chemical weapons infrastructure nor weakening its ability to carry on fighting on the ground. IMO degrading their air defence system would probably fit the bill.

An excellent question raised so far by MPs opposing the attack is what would we do after a strike if the regime used them again? What would our response be to that?

[anfield5]

People who know me know I am never one to throw my support behind either the U.S. or any sort of war/police action/conflict. But in this case I don't see how the civilised world can stand back and watch children being murdered with chemical weapons.
Most evidence points to Assad and his regime being to blame for the heinous, monstrosity, but if it was as he is trying to say, the rebels that instigated it, so what? Can the rest of the world sit by and do nothing? What would we do or expect if it were our children?

[BDunnell]

I would have thought the intention would be to raise the cost of ever using chemical weapons again high enough that the regime would not attempt it again without ironically doing anything to damage Syria's chemical weapons infrastructure nor weakening its ability to carry on fighting on the ground. IMO degrading their air defence system would probably fit the bill.

An excellent question raised so far by MPs opposing the attack is what would we do after a strike if the regime used them again? What would our response be to that?

Well, precisely. I think there is a risk of that whatever we do. In even looking like taking limited action, we have left ourselves very little room to manoeuvre. There are, as I see it, two options: either the action simply doesn't work in its primary aim of halting the use of chemical weapons, or there's a further escalation involving countries other than Syria.

[BDunnell]

People who know me know I am never one to throw my support behind either the U.S. or any sort of war/police action/conflict. But in this case I don't see how the civilised world can stand back and watch children being murdered with chemical weapons.

The civilised world sits back and watches all sorts of appalling things happening without taking action.

[anthonyvop]

My definition of civilians is unarmed non-combatants.

By your definition a lot of bad people who killed millions would have been off-limits.

Anyway. I thought all you euro-types had a collective chubby for President Hope and Change?

[anthonyvop]

BTW Syria has no known program for the production of Chemical weapons.

I wonder where and how they got them? Hmmmmmmmmm.

[BDunnell]

Anyway. I thought all you euro-types had a collective chubby for President Hope and Change?

Unlike you, Tony, quite a lot of us don't see people merely as 'good' or 'bad' and nothing in-between. Your comment is informed solely by your own ignorance of parts of the world other than your own and the views of the people within them.

[BDunnell]

BTW Syria has no known program for the production of Chemical weapons.

I wonder where and how they got them? Hmmmmmmmmm.

Now that is a very reasonable point.

[Mark]

There are two obvious places

[anfield5]

The civilised world sits back and watches all sorts of appalling things happening without taking action.

True, but does that make it any more or less right?

[BDunnell]

True, but does that make it any more or less right?

If one believes that we should take military action against every regime that commits actions we don't like, we would be at war an awful lot of the time. Take Russia and Bahrain.

[anthonyvop]

Unlike you, Tony, quite a lot of us don't see people merely as 'good' or 'bad' and nothing in-between. Your comment is informed solely by your own ignorance of parts of the world other than your own and the views of the people within them.

You and your types were quite vocal on your approval of the election of the current administration along with the Party apparatchiks who loved to state that Obama is going to make the world love the USA again.

So stop trying to sell me your revisionist history. I ain't buying.


It is bad enough that we have an imperial President who believes that rights are just a mere nuisance in the way of achieving his agenda.

[anthonyvop]

Jeez. Obama can't even control the Brits. How lame is that?

UK Votes Against Syria Military Action (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/29/UK-Prime-Minister-Cameron-loses-Syria-war-vote)

[Rollo]

Jeez. Obama can't even control the Brits. How lame is that?

UK Votes Against Syria Military Action (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/29/UK-Prime-Minister-Cameron-loses-Syria-war-vote)

Did you bother to read the article you posted?
has lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes, a stunning defeat for a government

Parliament defeated the action. You know, Parliament? That body of elected members? I think you'll find that in America, if Congress voted against military action there are provisions in the constitution which deal with that.

[anthonyvop]

Did you bother to read the article you posted?
has lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes, a stunning defeat for a government

Parliament defeated the action. You know, Parliament? That body of elected members? I think you'll find that in America, if Congress voted against military action there are provisions in the constitution which deal with that.

Bush never had any problems with the Brits. They did exactly as they were told.

[555-04Q2]

Jeez. Obama can't even control the Brits. How lame is that?

UK Votes Against Syria Military Action (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/29/UK-Prime-Minister-Cameron-loses-Syria-war-vote)

It's completely understandable. They don't want another Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

[555-04Q2]

The civilised world sits back and watches all sorts of appalling things happening without taking action.

100% correct :up:

Holy cr@p I just agreed with BDunnell on something...again :p :

[555-04Q2]

Bush never had any problems with the Brits. They did exactly as they were told.

That could be because Bush was a blithering idiot who couldn't spell his name right and Blair was an undercover idiot who was exposed for all the world to see ;)

[Rollo]

It's completely understandable. They don't want another Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Or this:
5 Possible Repercussions of a U.S. Military Strike on Syria - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/repercussions-us-military-strike-syria/story?id=20093229)
Iranian leaders also issued strong rhetoric in recent days, warning the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria and threatening to retaliate against Israel in response to any military meddling. One official was quoted in Iran's Fars news service saying that Iran would "flatten the place (Israel) that is tied to the U.S.'s national security."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/syria-iran-israel.html?_r=0
“In case of a U.S. military strike against Syria, the flames of outrage of the region’s revolutionaries will point toward the Zionist regime,”

Attack Syria for its use of chemical weapons and Iran attacks Israel? What? I don't see the logic of this at all but the problem is that Hassan Rouhani is just as bonkers as the guy he replaced.
Iran is yet another crazy thing in the impeding Sixty Batman Gambit Pileup.*


*A regular Gambit Pileup involves complicated plans where I trick you into manipulating me who then manipulates you into manipulating me who then manipulates you. A Batman Gambit is a complicated plan that revolves entirely around people doing exactly what you'd expect them to do.

[555-04Q2]

Or this:
5 Possible Repercussions of a U.S. Military Strike on Syria - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/repercussions-us-military-strike-syria/story?id=20093229)
Iranian leaders also issued strong rhetoric in recent days, warning the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria and threatening to retaliate against Israel in response to any military meddling. One official was quoted in Iran's Fars news service saying that Iran would "flatten the place (Israel) that is tied to the U.S.'s national security."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/syria-iran-israel.html?_r=0
“In case of a U.S. military strike against Syria, the flames of outrage of the region’s revolutionaries will point toward the Zionist regime,”

Attack Syria for its use of chemical weapons and Iran attacks Israel? What? I don't see the logic of this at all but the problem is that Hassan Rouhani is just as bonkers as the guy he replaced.
Iran is yet another crazy thing in the impeding Sixty Batman Gambit Pileup.

Yip, sadly the world is full of nutters. And the scary thing is a lot of them are in positions of power where they can carry out serious damage :s cary:

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think you need to go away and straighten up your arguments really because you contradict yourself on a regular basis.

With your kind permission, I'll just wait and see. Missing facts tend to eventually resurface and then we'll see soon whose point was more valid.

Also, what you find flawed in my reasoning is just a reflection of the highly complex situation in the Middle East. You won't be able to reduce that bundle of conflicting interests to any straight and easily comprehensible scheme.

[Mark]

Bush never had any problems with the Brits. They did exactly as they were told.

Which is exactly why we won't do as we are told now. It's because of Iraq that parliament - you know the group of people who were elected by the UK population, won't accept it now.

It's the right choice IMO. The USA should go ahead and do what it needs to do, the UK needs to accept it's place in the world and stop acting like we still have an Empire.

[Rollo]

Which is exactly why we won't do as we are told now. It's because of Iraq that parliament - you know the group of people who were elected by the UK population, won't accept it now.

There's also a major difference between 2003 and a decade later. In 2003 Labour had 413 of 641 seats; and had a spillover of 92. In 2013, Mr Cameron heads a coalition and of 650 seats, the Tories only hold 306; by themselves they're short by 19.
Admittedly if the Lid-Dems were to switch their alliance to Labour, the new coalition would still be short by 10 seats on the floor and whilst that's not enough to form a new government, it might be good enough to cause a vote of no confidence or a loss of supply.

[BDunnell]

You and your types were quite vocal on your approval of the election of the current administration along with the Party apparatchiks who loved to state that Obama is going to make the world love the USA again.

So stop trying to sell me your revisionist history. I ain't buying.

What utter tripe, Tony. There's no 'revisionist history' about it. It is possible to welcome someone's election and then criticise them when they execute policies one considers to be wrong, you know. People aren't generally either wholly bad or wholly good.

[BDunnell]

Bush never had any problems with the Brits. They did exactly as they were told.

And we hated it.

[BDunnell]

Which is exactly why we won't do as we are told now. It's because of Iraq that parliament - you know the group of people who were elected by the UK population, won't accept it now.

In part. The government has totally failed to make the case for this specific action. With Libya in 2011, there was no problem at all.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has moved the goalposts significantly. In this specific instance, unlike with Libya, there was a need to base the decision in part on uncertain intelligence. I don't believe MPs, including many who voted in favour of the Iraq war, were willing to give such intelligence the benefit of the doubt again.



It's the right choice IMO. The USA should go ahead and do what it needs to do, the UK needs to accept it's place in the world and stop acting like we still have an Empire.

Some of the reactions along the lines of 'Britain is no longer a proper country', 'Britain's status has been diminished' and so on have been absolutely amazing. As if we were a great power before! These people, it would appear, only base a country's status on whether or not it participates in military action. And there are quite a lot of them, not all on the right.

In addition, militarily speaking, whatever action the US and France take will miss little from Britain's not being involved.

[555-04Q2]

However, there is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has moved the goalposts significantly. In this specific instance, unlike with Libya, there was a need to base the decision in part on uncertain intelligence. I don't believe MPs, including many who voted in favour of the Iraq war, were willing to give such intelligence the benefit of the doubt again.

The problem with Iraq was the reason for invading was because they "had WOMD" that were a threat to the world. When the UN inspectors said "well we haven't found any WOMD and they don't have any" the west still invaded. That was their mistake, it pissed off the world including the majority of Americans and Brits. The reason for the war had nothing to do with WOMD or anything else for that matter, it was purely a vendetta to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Now with Syria, they need to make damn sure who was responsible for the CW attack before they go in. They also need to be clear on why they will take action if they do. I wonder what is going to transpire in Syria as there are reports that "assets" are at the ready and it looks like some form of action is going to be taken within the next few days. When, how and by whom though remains to be seen.

[Malbec]

I don't see the logic of this at all but the problem is that Hassan Rouhani is just as bonkers as the guy he replaced.

Nope, its just that in Iran the Presidency is excluded from deciding foreign policy to a large extent and in particular military action. Those two areas are under the control of the supreme leader Khamenei and the revolutionary guard and they are both as belligerent as ever.

[Spafranco]

By your definition a lot of bad people who killed millions would have been off-limits.

Anyway. I thought all you euro-types had a collective chubby for President Hope and Change?

At every opportunity you feel a compulsion as though it were lust induced to make a disparaging remark against YOUR president and the European contingent that frequent this forum.

For once in your life and 5,508 posts read some of them. I have been reading posts on this forum you never change even when you were corrected. You draw conclusions from thin air.

Why not take a deep breath , sit back and think rationally about your posts. You do know that by implication you are suggesting that you have this "collective chubby for George Bush".

[555-04Q2]

This thread has been going well so far chaps, let's try and keep it that way please! :)

[Malbec]

If one believes that we should take military action against every regime that commits actions we don't like, we would be at war an awful lot of the time. Take Russia and Bahrain.

Don't you think the use of chemical weapons crosses the line?

[Roamy]

Well I hope we just honor the world vote and leave this alone. Matter of fact I think the world will probably vote to let Iran have Nukes so in light of that we should
offer anyone from israel immediate citizenship if they would like to come. And of course the offset would be the deportation of one muslim per Jew. The middle east has become old hat now so fuzk these people - let them sort it out we can go share brats with the germans, kidney pie with the brits and wine with the french and about everything the italians have. To survive Israel is going to have to nuke the crap out of that sh!thole and they don't need much help from us. So lets all go get another tattoo and smoke a joint!!

[Malbec]

Also, what you find flawed in my reasoning is just a reflection of the highly complex situation in the Middle East. You won't be able to reduce that bundle of conflicting interests to any straight and easily comprehensible scheme.

No its the opposite. I agree that the situation in the Middle East is highly complex but your attempts to oversimplify grate. Examples include lumping all Islamist political groups and Arab monarchies together (Erdogan and the Saudi Royal family? really?), that the Syrian opposition is entirely Jihadist or claiming all modern wars are quick and dynamic or that modern politicians don't act decisively. Anyone willing to use such sweeping generalisations is difficult to take seriously.

[anthonyvop]

At every opportunity you feel a compulsion as though it were lust induced to make a disparaging remark against YOUR president and the European contingent that frequent this forum.

For once in your life and 5,508 posts read some of them. I have been reading posts on this forum you never change even when you were corrected. You draw conclusions from thin air.

Why not take a deep breath , sit back and think rationally about your posts. You do know that by implication you are suggesting that you have this "collective chubby for George Bush".

You are more than welcome to prove me wrong using FACTS.

Until then I suggest you stick to the topic at hand.

[Rudy Tamasz]

No its the opposite. I agree that the situation in the Middle East is highly complex but your attempts to oversimplify grate. Examples include lumping all Islamist political groups and Arab monarchies together (Erdogan and the Saudi Royal family? really?), that the Syrian opposition is entirely Jihadist or claiming all modern wars are quick and dynamic or that modern politicians don't act decisively. Anyone willing to use such sweeping generalisations is difficult to take seriously.

I'll keep that in mind, thank you.

[Spafranco]

You are more than welcome to prove me wrong using FACTS.

Until then I suggest you stick to the topic at hand.

You have been proven incorrect so many times it's almost laughable. What you do when you have been shown to be incorrect is you hide. Then pop up a few days later to bash the President and Europeans.

At any rate I'm going to stay on the topic and not allow you to divert my attention once more.

[airshifter]

The UN briefing that just took place shows how the UN works. They are still dragging feet on trying to determine IF chemical weapons were used. Testing for common chemical warfare weapons is very swift, yet they may need "weeks".

I wish for once the US would sit back until evidence is damning and without question. Then the rest of the world could cry that we didn't do anything to protect human rights! Yet other than France, no nation really seems very concerned with that issue...

[anthonyvop]

You have been proven incorrect so many times it's almost laughable. What you do when you have been shown to be incorrect is you hide. Then pop up a few days later to bash the President and Europeans.

At any rate I'm going to stay on the topic and not allow you to divert my attention once more.

Of course your not. You insult then run and hide.......

[airshifter]

It appears that Obama has now decided to wait and seek the authorization of Congress. Wise move, and that extra week gives some time for the UN to decide what they think is happening. Not that I'm going to hold my breath waiting for the UN to be decisive about anything.

[BDunnell]

I wish for once the US would sit back until evidence is damning and without question. Then the rest of the world could cry that we didn't do anything to protect human rights! Yet other than France, no nation really seems very concerned with that issue...

A rather simplistic view, if I may say so. As outlined, there are other factors at play in the UK's decision not to become involved.

[BDunnell]

Don't you think the use of chemical weapons crosses the line?

To me, a massacre on the part of a regime is rendered neither worse nor better depending on the methods used to carry it out.

[BleAivano]

Why are you American so eager to start another war, which would the third in about a decade?

Perhaps you should clean up the mess you created in Afghanistan and Iraq or is Syria just a way to provoke Iran so you can invande them as well?

And who is pulling the strings behind the scenes?

The US weapons industry? Israel? Or perhaps both?

Or perhaps its just "Wag the dog"-scenario? Start a war to move the focus from the domestic problems.

A millitary attack on Syria will result in large civillian casulties just like in Afgst. and Iraq.

How do you deal with that?

[Koz]

Jeez. Obama can't even control the Brits. How lame is that?


Now, we'll see that Obama can't even control the Senate. :(

[Starter]

Why are you American so eager to start another war, which would the third in about a decade?

Perhaps you should clean up the mess you created in Afghanistan and Iraq or is Syria just a way to provoke Iran so you can invande them as well?

And who is pulling the strings behind the scenes?

The US weapons industry? Israel? Or perhaps both?

Or perhaps its just "Wag the dog"-scenario? Start a war to move the focus from the domestic problems.

A millitary attack on Syria will result in large civillian casulties just like in Afgst. and Iraq.

How do you deal with that?
You need to reconsider your entire post.

I'll concede that Iraq was political in nature and not based on true facts. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was directly related to 9/11nd was the response to that attack which was orchestrated from Afghanistan. True that the US took it's eye off the ball to go play in Iraq, still the original reason for being in Afghanistan was valid - since there was no central government there which could control squat (terrorists).

The rest of your post is essentially garbage. The American people do not WANT another war. We'll fight one if forced, but we don't want one. The apologists for chemical weapons remind me a lot of the apologists for Germany in 1939. Peace at any price, forgetting that peace at ANY price is a poor bargain. Chemical weapons are not so bad. Until you can't breath the air or drink the water.

[odykas]

It appears that Obama has now decided to wait and seek the authorization of Congress..


I think he's probably waiting for feedback from G.W. Bush.
But Dubya is not answering the phone.

[donKey jote]

Why are you American so eager to start another war, which would the third in about a decade?

them cruise missiles aproaching their "best before" date again? :p :andrea:

[Parabolica]

You need to reconsider your entire post.

I'll concede that Iraq was political in nature and not based on true facts. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was directly related to 9/11nd was the response to that attack which was orchestrated from Afghanistan. True that the US took it's eye off the ball to go play in Iraq, still the original reason for being in Afghanistan was valid - since there was no central government there which could control squat (terrorists).

The rest of your post is essentially garbage. The American people do not WANT another war. We'll fight one if forced, but we don't want one. The apologists for chemical weapons remind me a lot of the apologists for Germany in 1939. Peace at any price, forgetting that peace at ANY price is a poor bargain. Chemical weapons are not so bad. Until you can't breath the air or drink the water.

And yet, had you ever walked around the graveyards on the Western Front, or counted the names on every war memorial in every town and village in my country, you may appreciate that the appeasers of 1939 weren't appeassers without reason. They had witnessed the heart of their nation's youth massacred for no purpose.

One could hardly blame them for not wanting to see another conflict, no matter how valid it turned out to be.



Also, it's way with hindsight to say how things rolled, but in the cases of the Arab Spring does anybody know who the good guys really are?

[Roamy]

I would do absolutely nothing until I could do a 100% guaranteed hit on Assad. This would serve the correct notice to the world.

[Tazio]

And yet, had you ever walked around the graveyards on the Western Front, or counted the names on every war memorial in every town and village in my country, you may appreciate that the appeasers of 1939 weren't appeassers without reason. They had witnessed the heart of their nation's youth massacred for no purpose.

One could hardly blame them for not wanting to see another conflict, no matter how valid it turned out to be.



Also, it's way with hindsight to say how things rolled, but in the cases of the Arab Spring does anybody know who the good guys really are?

Please don't confuse this thread with facts. The vast majority of my countrymen, and women don't realize that there were approximately twice as many French military casualties in The Great War (WW1 as we call it) than Americans in every conflict that we have participated in combined. However I don't believe that the majority of Americans want a war. Half of the electorate only cares to see The President of the USA make a bad decision in this matter. That is how polarized and desensitized things have gotten here.

[Parabolica]

Please accept that I wasn't intending to lambast your countrymen. My post had no national target.

It is sad, that is all, that the Appeasers of 1939 are judged solely with a modern perspective, sometimes making them appear not just to have been appeasers but also cowards when, in truth, the very reason they appeased was due to their experience of bravery and loss.

On the subject of Syria, I remember an old saying of my Grandfather. "When you get on a boat, make sure you know where it is sailing to".

[Tazio]

I didn't think you were bro. I was agreeing with your point, but also trying to point out that broad generalizations about what the citizens in this country want and believe is an exercise in futility, as we are very diverse, and don't have a large majority ideology on most social matters.

[Starter]

And yet, had you ever walked around the graveyards on the Western Front, or counted the names on every war memorial in every town and village in my country, you may appreciate that the appeasers of 1939 weren't appeassers without reason. They had witnessed the heart of their nation's youth massacred for no purpose.


One could hardly blame them for not wanting to see another conflict, no matter how valid it turned out to be.
I completely understand that view. That still does not excuse failing to see the quite obvious track where Hitler was going.




Also, it's way with hindsight to say how things rolled, but in the cases of the Arab Spring does anybody know who the good guys really are?
My personal opinion is that we should just butt out of other country's business and let you all fight your own battles on your own money and lives. And when somebody comes calling asking us to help them out we just say piss off, that's your problem. Unfortunately my view is not the majority one and if we're going to fight someone anyway we should at least do it for the right reasons. IMO chemical weapons are one of the right reasons.

[Roamy]

If you want to fight a war - keep the country you take!! That would end this sh!t fast.

[Parabolica]

Yet, had there been more Appeasement in 1913 and less Hawkish military confrontationalism, there never would have been a Hitler to appease in 1939.

It wasn't Appeasement that failed, it was the legacy left by Gung-Ho attitudes and itchy trigger-fingers.

I suppose that, with regard to the Syrian situation, what concerns me is that the very organisations I am asked to believe about the use of Chemical Weapons, and who used them, are the self same organisations who claimed beyond doubt that Saddam had WMD.

I feel deeply uneasy having to trust liars.

[555-04Q2]

Too true :up:

[BDunnell]

I completely understand that view. That still does not excuse failing to see the quite obvious track where Hitler was going.

This is precisely why the comparison is irrelevant. It was clear where Hitler was going. The situation in Syria, with multiple groups fighting over multiple objectives, is far from clear. This is not a 'good guys versus bad guys' issue, as much as some — mainly Americans, it would seem — would like to see it that way.

[Mark]

This is precisely why the comparison is irrelevant. It was clear where Hitler was going. The situation in Syria, with multiple groups fighting over multiple objectives, is far from clear. This is not a 'good guys versus bad guys' issue, as much as some — mainly Americans, it would seem — would like to see it that way.

Indeed as far as the United States is concerned, it's arguable that their national interests are best served by supporting Assad rather than supporting the rebels!

[Tazio]

Syria Poll Finds Little American Support For Air Strikes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/syria-poll_n_3832395.html)

Americans largely oppose any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, with only a quarter saying they support air strikes there.

[odykas]

Syria's Chemical Weapons Sites Can't Be Safely Bombed, Experts Say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/syrias-chemical-weapons-s_n_3842290.html)



You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.

[airshifter]

Syria Poll Finds Little American Support For Air Strikes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/syria-poll_n_3832395.html)

Americans largely oppose any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, with only a quarter saying they support air strikes there.

Don't start dealing with polls or facts now, as it appears quite a few here are already determined that everyone in the US is just itching to start another war.

I guess it shows how out of touch the rest of the world is.

[Tazio]

Don't start dealing with polls or facts now, as it appears quite a few here are already determined that everyone in the US is just itching to start another war.

I guess it shows how out of touch the rest of the world is.
You have to admit it is quite amusing. :laugh:
Best wishes,
http://i.imgur.com/HbXSkry.jpg ;)

[BDunnell]

Don't start dealing with polls or facts now, as it appears quite a few here are already determined that everyone in the US is just itching to start another war.

I guess it shows how out of touch the rest of the world is.

So those on this forum are unrepresentative?

I very much get the feeling that the current anti-war feeling in America is born largely of the view that the rest of the world has shown insufficient gratitude for its recent efforts, rather than being genuine.

[Tazio]

I'd say that is not the case at all in this situation. It appears to this American that the reasons are the same as the rest of the west. Quite simply Americans are concerned that an attack is likely to worsen the situation not improve it :bulb:

[Parabolica]

I don't think I had said that Americans were desperate to see their military in action?

That would just be lazy stereotyping.

[Jag_Warrior]

So those on this forum are unrepresentative?

I very much get the feeling that the current anti-war feeling in America is born largely of the view that the rest of the world has shown insufficient gratitude for its recent efforts, rather than being genuine.

Well, we don't know. The views expressed by the Americans (or any other nationality) here are only representative of their own individual views, not necessarily of the larger population.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in a previous post: we often have this tendency to want to see good guys vs. bad guys, even though there may be two good guys... but more likely just two (relatively) bad guys. And while it may be horrible that Assad has used chemical weapons to kill people, is killing them with bullets or helicopter gunships any more humane... really? Last I checked, dead was dead - there are no varying degrees. So even though the use of chemical weapons violates age old international agreements, would we say it would be OK if he'd stop using gas and just use Napalm instead (as he's apparently already done and as we did in Vietnam), or maybe just those little cluster bombs that one of my former employers did such a wonderful job of developing?

Yes, Assad is a bad guy. He's horrible. But as we found out with Afghanistan in the 1980's and with Iraq about that same time, today's good guy can easily turn into tomorrow's bad guy. Maybe more Americans are just waking up to that reality and aren't as keen to believe the empty political propaganda and feel-good, phony patriot speeches that the politicians so often deliver. I do hate it for the people in Syria. I really do. But I hate it for the people caught up in wars in Africa, Asia and South America too. Heck, some estimates have put the death toll of the cartel wars in Mexico at around 60,000 people! And that violence is MOST DEFINITELY affecting American citizens and so called "American interests". But I haven't noticed Obama or the Republicans calling emergency sessions to deal with that. Not even. They've all sat on their thumbs while that's gone on - and so has the rest of the "international community".

We have a lot of issues here that need to be dealt with... first. And I am of the mind that charity starts at home. Course, if nobody else wants to do anything and everybody agrees that something must be done, I guess we could take care of it. And then impose a global tax on the rest of you. Somebody (else) needs to pay. We've seen roughly a trillion $ (of money we had to borrow from China) wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. And many of us realize that we're the ones who'll be on the hook for nation building Syria if we're the ones who blow it up. With our roads, bridges, public transportation, schools, power grids and all manner of infrastructure literally crumbling here, it just doesn't set well with many of us that we've allegedly rebuilt one bridge in Iraq a total of 8 times! We blew it up. We rebuilt it. The insurgents blew it up. We rebuilt it. The insurgents blew it up. We rebuilt it. Keep spinning the record. But I-75 going into Detroit looks like mortars hit it most of the time. That dog don't hunt. And yeah, many of us are tired of it. If things really are that bad, why is everyone else's feet stuck in concrete???

[Parabolica]

Perhaps people on both sides of the Atlantic are thinking that we could build a lot of Hospitals and Schools for the price of a military adventure.

Probably wishful thinking.

[airshifter]

So those on this forum are unrepresentative?

I very much get the feeling that the current anti-war feeling in America is born largely of the view that the rest of the world has shown insufficient gratitude for its recent efforts, rather than being genuine.

I would venture that any time you have a sampling rate of 7 or 8 people and expect a representative view of an entire very large country you would probably find flawed polling involved. ;)

The only thing I expect from the rest of the world is assistance in dealing with what is a very complex issue rather than grossly ignore human rights. To do nothing is letting chemicals continue to be used, but an attack is likely to worsen the situation as well. When we have countries such as Russia stonewalling any action for profit, finding a solution may be difficult.



I've already accepted that much of the world will place blame on the US regardless of what we do or don't do.... thus no need to rush to judgement.

[Roamy]

as i said they only thing that would make any sense is a direct hit on assad -- anything else is a waste of time and money

[Rudy Tamasz]

BTW, anybody would venture to project and compare what Syria would be like if the U.S. attacks Bashar and if it doesn't?

[gadjo_dilo]

BTW, anybody would venture to project and compare what Syria would be like if the U.S. attacks Bashar and if it doesn't?

Chaos, in both cases? :confused:

[Mark]

Yes absolutely. The US is going to involve itself in tipping the balance of power, but without actually having any boots on the ground to tidy up. Assad falls and Syria will be chaos for a good while. As the rebels are only united against a common enemy, once the enemy is gone it'll make the current situation look like a nice afternoon in the park.

[Starter]

Yes absolutely. The US is going to involve itself in tipping the balance of power, but without actually having any boots on the ground to tidy up. Assad falls and Syria will be chaos for a good while. As the rebels are only united against a common enemy, once the enemy is gone it'll make the current situation look like a nice afternoon in the park.
That is the most likely outcome by far.

[gadjo_dilo]

. Assad falls and Syria will be chaos for a good while. As the rebels are only united against a common enemy, once the enemy is gone it'll make the current situation look like a nice afternoon in the park.

Maybe because freedom is not necessarily a guarantee of something better. Freedom is only a posibility, a chance given to man to become a man. Nobody knows exactly what freedom is. But some of us know very well what the lack of it means.......

[Mark]

There are many in the Syrian opposition who aren't interested in 'freedom', but only the freedom for them to be in charge instead.

[gadjo_dilo]

There are many in the Syrian opposition who aren't interested in 'freedom', but only the freedom for them to be in charge instead.
This is not happening only in Syria....

[Starter]

There are many in the Syrian opposition who aren't interested in 'freedom', but only the freedom for them to be in charge instead.
Take a look at the history of the twentieth century to date. Now count up all of the "revolutions" and then count how many resulted in an actual democracy. The vast majority ended in another dictatorship or yet another revolution, etc., etc.

[Mark]

Take a look at the history of the twentieth century to date. Now count up all of the "revolutions" and then count how many resulted in an actual democracy. The vast majority ended in another dictatorship or yet another revolution, etc., etc.

Actually a lot of countries in the 20th century went from dictatorship to democracy, Russia, Spain, Italy are the ones I can think of in this moment.

[Starter]

Actually a lot of countries in the 20th century went from dictatorship to democracy, Russia, Spain, Italy are the ones I can think of in this moment.
Only have a moment so I'll just mention that Russia's original 20th century revolution resulted in a rather long Communist dictatorship so that example is pretty much a wash. Check out Asia, Africa, Central and South America for many other examples of revolutions not resulting in real democracies no matter what they may call themselves.

[Parabolica]

Only have a moment so I'll just mention that Russia's original 20th century revolution resulted in a rather long Communist dictatorship so that example is pretty much a wash. Check out Asia, Africa, Central and South America for many other examples of revolutions not resulting in real democracies no matter what they may call themselves.

To be fair to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, he wasn't really promoting the idea of democracy as his goal from the outset.

Very few revolutions in history have had democracy as a goal. Not in terms of it been the desire of the leading exponents in the revolutions, anyway.

Most revolutions are brought on by a hatred of the incumbent tyrant.

Most revolutionaries just want to swap positions from oppressed to oppressor.

It is, to be fair, a much better gig.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If I were Obama what I'd actually do would be something like what the U.S. pulled in former Yugoslavia in mid-1990s. I'd let the sides fight each other for a while and get exhausted so that they realize that exterminating the other side is not an option. Then I'd bring them to the negotiation table and broker a peace that would guarantee a unified country, tight international control over conventional and chemical weapons, and the rights of minorities. That's what worked in Bosnia, although, back in the day everybody thought the fighting would resume the day the Yanks go. It didn't.

Well, I guess this is too simplistic a solution. Obama, being a highly sophisticated individual, a Nobel Prize winner, obviously needs something subtler and gentler. The latest peace making technologies such as drones would suit him just perfect.

[Malbec]

BTW, anybody would venture to project and compare what Syria would be like if the U.S. attacks Bashar and if it doesn't?

I don't think the attacks will make much difference. The assumption people seem to be making here is that an American attack will be a total gamechanger leaving Assad's army a smouldering ruin. The US and France don't have the leeway or the motivation to go that far.

Remember that despite people's assertions here Obama has played Syria very conservatively, effectively trying to do as little as possible. He faces strong opposition from China and Russia overseas and from the US electorate at home who are not keen to enter another Iraq situation. None of this has changed despite the use of chemical weapons.

What I think we will see is a low-risk approach which will focus on reducing Syria's air defence capabilities in case future strikes are ever required, and hitting his chemical weapons delivery systems and command and control. He won't hit the storage or preparation facilities in case they then become vulnerable to looting or chemical leaks. Nor will he attack Syria's army in the field which would increase the risk of civilian casualties massively and likely involve special forces on the ground. This large-scale approach will harden Russian opposition in particular and help Obama lose Republican support that he has temporarily gained for his proposals.

In short he will not seriously damage Assad's ability to keep fighting a ground war, but he will hit him hard enough to make him reconsider using chemical weapons again and leave him vulnerable to wider air strike in the future.

[Spafranco]

Actually a lot of countries in the 20th century went from dictatorship to democracy, Russia, Spain, Italy are the ones I can think of in this moment.
Germany being the biggest of course. One that stumbled after a dictatorship is the Yugoslavia. Tito kept it moderately Westernized until the end of communism in that part of the world and then the old ideologies that had lain dormant for many years erupted again.
Something akin to Northern Ireland. Just look at the Orange Chapter parades thumbing their noses at the Catholics ,police and politicians. Even bringing in idiots from England to help encourage mayhem. Then the "Real IRA" have road blocks. The Real IRA is lucky that the Provo's are not active. But I would not bet they are gone. They are looking on I would imagine.

So, as predicted in Iraq if US and allies left there would be slaughter. The warmongers like Lieberman and the rest would love to hand over the fiasco to their children when everyone leaves.

One thing I am amazed at never reading on these forums is the fact that in all the newscasts by Fox I never saw them mention the killing of British soldiers or any other coalition force soldiers. It was as though this was a fight solely and the reserves were the S.A.S, hardly a backup group. A nation of 55 million losing four or six men in an ambush at a police station barely got a mention on our TV especially Fox. I do not totaly recall if it were four or six.
If anyone ever gets an opportunity to get a book written by an S.A.S sniper team in Southern Iraq trying to hold onto a town with drug addled Al Sadr maniacs you will realize that it was not just us that had to fight and suffer loss. I will get the books name for anyone interested if you want PM me.
After the Brits left. Pandemonium, just as there would be in Northern Ireland and many other countries world wide. "Pick your battles"

[gadjo_dilo]

If I were Obama what I'd actually do would be something like what the U.S. pulled in former Yugoslavia in mid-1990s. I'd let the sides fight each other for a while and get exhausted so that they realize that exterminating the other side is not an option. Then I'd bring them to the negotiation table and broker a peace that would guarantee a unified country, tight international control over conventional and chemical weapons, and the rights of minorities. That's what worked in Bosnia, although, back in the day everybody thought the fighting would resume the day the Yanks go. It didn't.


Hey! What about the episode of bombing Belgrade on Easter night? :confused:

[Mark]

The thing about Yugoslavia and Bosnia is that there were three very well defined sides. And later two well defined sides.

In Syria don't be fooled that the FSA is one group. It's more like a dozen different ones most of whom would readily slaughter each other given the opportunity.

[Parabolica]

I don't expect anybody to be able to put a figure on it, but in the case of, say, Yugoslavia, how many citizens died as a direct result of Tito's regime compared to the "democratic" aftermath?

I wonder how many civilians died in Saddam's Iraq compared to the 10 years since from violence?

I'm not promoting Dictatorship, but it could be claimed that it is, sometimes, the lesser of two evils?

I know that, given the choice, I would choose a lack of democracy over Ethnic Cleansing or being blown up doing my weekly shop.

It's not courageous, I accept.

[Starter]

I don't expect anybody to be able to put a figure on it, but in the case of, say, Yugoslavia, how many citizens died as a direct result of Tito's regime compared to the "democratic" aftermath?

I wonder how many civilians died in Saddam's Iraq compared to the 10 years since from violence?
I suspect that many less died under the dictators in both cases. Both were also similar in that there were long standing ethnic issues which were suppressed under Tito and Sadam.

[gadjo_dilo]

I don't think that life under Tito's regime was too bad. I remember that we always looked with envy at the freedom they enjoyed. Not to mention that all those who wanted to leave the country illegally, did it by crossing the border with Yugoslavia.

[BDunnell]

The thing about Yugoslavia and Bosnia is that there were three very well defined sides. And later two well defined sides.

More than two was, according to the BBC's John Simpson, too many for the bosses of certain US networks who feared their viewers would be unable to understand a war between anything other than two sides.

[Roamy]

So lets get this all in one place:
1. absolute proof that assad gassed his own people
2. US says action needed
3. TIREs chickensh!tted out again on helping.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.

[Rollo]

3. TIREs chickensh!tted out again on helping.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.

Wasn't France the first country that suggested that something be done? Even before Obama decided to refer it to Congress? Wasn't the proof that the chemical attacks provided by the BND (ie the Bundesnachrichtendienst)?

Hmm... news from places that aren't America doesn't seem to exist.

[Parabolica]

[quote="Roamy"]So lets get this all in one place:
1. absolute proof that assad gassed his own people
2. US says action needed
3. TIREs chickensh!tted out again on helping.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.[quote]

As a local Law Enforcement
Officer would say -

Can you explain your whereabouts in September 1939 until December 1941?

My Grandfather was flying a Hurricane. Where was yours?

[Parabolica]

So lets get this all in one place:
1. absolute proof that assad gassed his own people
2. US says action needed
3. TIREs chickensh!tted out again on helping.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.[quote]

As a local Law Enforcement
Officer would say -

Can you explain your whereabouts in September 1939 until December 1941?

My Grandfather was flying a Hurricane.

Where was yours?

[Parabolica]

So lets get this all in one place:
1. absolute proof that assad gassed his own people
2. US says action needed
3. TIREs chickensh!tted out again on helping.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.

As a local Law Enforcement Officer would say -

Can you explain your whereabouts between September 1939 until December 1941?

[Parabolica]

I suspect that many less died under the dictators in both cases. Both were also similar in that there were long standing ethnic issues which were suppressed under Tito and Sadam.

A very similar issue lies in the midst of the current Syrian situation, I suspect.

The one map that shows why Syria is so complicated (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/27/the-one-map-that-shows-why-syria-is-so-complicated/)

[gadjo_dilo]

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.

Interesting that the american moral fiber was touched only after the chemical attacks. Where was hiding the White House's moral indignation when in the last two years that civil war produced 100000 victims?'' Or seen from Washington the death by conventional weapons looks more ethical........ :confused:

Those who should be ashamed are those who manipulate a horrible massacre for their own benefit.

P.S. As a coward whose knickers are trembling I still wonder what is in Obama's mind. Because after punishing the gas attacks with a few bombs in a sort of war of pulling the ears of the naughty ones, the beligerant parts would be left to slaughter again and again with conventional weapons.

[Rollo]

P.S. As a coward whose knickers are trembling I still wonder what is in Obama's mind.

If Obama had decided to use the military, you can bet your bottom dollar that Congress would have kicked up a stink that he acted without their approval.

Paul Syria Amendment (http://www.scribd.com/doc/165409346/Paul-Syria-Amendment)
It is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria
- Rand Paul's Amendment

Congress 113 is as toxic and as unhelpful as Congress 112 was. Even if Obama was to do something, Congress ultimately controls the purse strings. So far, the floor of both houses has produced a lot of vitriol on the subject.

[Ranger]

Meanwhile:

War games: McCain caught playing poker on iPhone during Syria debate | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/john-mccain-poker-iphone-syria-debate)

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01802/McCain01b_1802218a.jpg

[Rudy Tamasz]

Hey! What about the episode of bombing Belgrade on Easter night? :confused:

That was a bit later, because of Kosovo and it's a whole different story. I'm talking about the 1995 Dayton agreement that ended the Bosnian war.

In general, the golden rule that anybody trying to resolve a conflict from outside should stick to is "Don't take sides; be impartial." The U.S. broke this rule in every conflict except Bosnia and paid for it dearly with money and lives.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I don't think that life under Tito's regime was too bad. I remember that we always looked with envy at the freedom they enjoyed. Not to mention that all those who wanted to leave the country illegally, did it by crossing the border with Yugoslavia.

When I visited Bosnia in 2008 the nostalgia about the old Yugolsvia was huge and Tito's portraits were everywhere.

[Rudy Tamasz]

1. absolute proof that assad gassed his own people


What the U.S. currently has would be not enough to prove it in a district court that a burglar used tear spray during a break-in. Do simple rules of evidence validity not apply in international law?

[Malbec]

In general, the golden rule that anybody trying to resolve a conflict from outside should stick to is "Don't take sides; be impartial." The U.S. broke this rule in every conflict except Bosnia and paid for it dearly with money and lives.

Eh?

Bosnia is THE example of the US taking sides and refusing to be impartial.

When the war kicked off the EU's approach was that all three sides were as bad as each other and refused to take sides. The US concluded that they were not equal, the Serbs were overwhelmingly more powerful and that the Bosnian Muslims and Croats were the persecuted groups.

From the beginning of the conflict the US supplied light weapons to the Bosnians funded and sourced by the Saudis and Iranians. They helped build up the Bosnian Muslim and Croatian forces to enable them to resist and eventually beat the Serbs.

The EU on the other hand brokered ceasefire after ceasefire only to have them broken again and again. The US often interfered in these processes on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims and to a lesser extent the Croats.

In the end the shift in the balance of military power towards the Bosnian Muslims and Croats aided significantly by the US together with the NATO bombing campaign lead by the US and targetting the Serbs finally resulted in peace talks.

I would recommend you read the excellent "the death of Yugoslavia" which chronicles the massive gap between US and EU policy towards Bosnia throughout this sordid period.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Death-Yugoslavia-Allan-Little/dp/0140261680

[Malbec]

If Obama had decided to use the military, you can bet your bottom dollar that Congress would have kicked up a stink that he acted without their approval.

Paul Syria Amendment (http://www.scribd.com/doc/165409346/Paul-Syria-Amendment)
It is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria
- Rand Paul's Amendment

Congress 113 is as toxic and as unhelpful as Congress 112 was. Even if Obama was to do something, Congress ultimately controls the purse strings. So far, the floor of both houses has produced a lot of vitriol on the subject.

Obama has painted himself into a corner with this one, drawing a red line where he claimed he would act militarily if the Syrians crossed it but not having the political capital to act now the Syrians have done what noone ever thought they would do.

[555-04Q2]

So lets get this all in one place:
1. absolute proof that assad gassed his own people
2. US says action needed
3. TIREs chickensh!tted out again on helping.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves
You have no moral fiber at all.

I'm ashamed. Gonna go outside and punch myself now :p :

[Rudy Tamasz]

Eh?

Bosnia is THE example of the US taking sides and refusing to be impartial.

When the war kicked off the EU's approach was that all three sides were as bad as each other and refused to take sides. The US concluded that they were not equal, the Serbs were overwhelmingly more powerful and that the Bosnian Muslims and Croats were the persecuted groups.

From the beginning of the conflict the US supplied light weapons to the Bosnians funded and sourced by the Saudis and Iranians. They helped build up the Bosnian Muslim and Croatian forces to enable them to resist and eventually beat the Serbs.

The EU on the other hand brokered ceasefire after ceasefire only to have them broken again and again. The US often interfered in these processes on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims and to a lesser extent the Croats.

In the end the shift in the balance of military power towards the Bosnian Muslims and Croats aided significantly by the US together with the NATO bombing campaign lead by the US and targetting the Serbs finally resulted in peace talks.

I would recommend you read the excellent "the death of Yugoslavia" which chronicles the massive gap between US and EU policy towards Bosnia throughout this sordid period.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Death-Yugoslavia-Allan-Little/dp/0140261680

It's nice to have somebody around who's so meticulous about detail. You obviously know the recent history better than I do. The bottom line, though, is that in Bosnia the U.S. did not launch a military intervention to support one side of the conflict, while in Kosovo and Lybia they did.

[Malbec]

in Bosnia the U.S. did not launch a military intervention to support one side of the conflict, while in Kosovo and Lybia they did.

Operation Deliberate Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NATO_bombing_campaign_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovi na)

A US-lead NATO bombing campaign hitting the Republika Srpska armed forces, a campaign that the US had been lobbying for for years but blocked by the EU. Also the US brokered the Washington agreement which formed a ceasefire between the Croats and Muslims, forging a united Croat-Muslim armed forces and supplying them with logistical equipment and training to attack the Serbs with.

I would argue that the US intervention in Bosnia was at least on a par with the other two conflicts you mention although the fact that the EU (or rather the UK and France) were in agreement with the US in the latter two conflicts makes a direct comparison difficult.

[Starter]

The EU on the other hand brokered ceasefire after ceasefire only to have them broken again and again. The US often interfered in these processes on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims and to a lesser extent the Croats.
A typical use of "diplomacy" to get the upper hand used by both sides in this war. Talk until you have the upper hand, then attack. The European community is famous for enabling this kind of behavior.


In the end the shift in the balance of military power towards the Bosnian Muslims and Croats aided significantly by the US together with the NATO bombing campaign lead by the US and targetting the Serbs finally resulted in peace talks.
A good example of why diplomacy does not always work. Sometimes you just have to do it the hard way before others get the message.

[Starter]

Interesting that the american moral fiber was touched only after the chemical attacks. Where was hiding the White House's moral indignation when in the last two years that civil war produced 100000 victims?'' Or seen from Washington the death by conventional weapons looks more ethical........ :confused:

Those who should be ashamed are those who manipulate a horrible massacre for their own benefit.

P.S. As a coward whose knickers are trembling I still wonder what is in Obama's mind. Because after punishing the gas attacks with a few bombs in a sort of war of pulling the ears of the naughty ones, the beligerant parts would be left to slaughter again and again with conventional weapons.
As a matter of curiosity, I wonder what your thoughts on the use of other than conventional weapons is. Do you consider all weapons essentially equal - gunpowder, chemical, biological and nuclear? Is there a distinction and, if so, why?

[Starter]

If Obama had decided to use the military, you can bet your bottom dollar that Congress would have kicked up a stink that he acted without their approval.

Paul Syria Amendment (http://www.scribd.com/doc/165409346/Paul-Syria-Amendment)
It is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria
- Rand Paul's Amendment

Congress 113 is as toxic and as unhelpful as Congress 112 was. Even if Obama was to do something, Congress ultimately controls the purse strings. So far, the floor of both houses has produced a lot of vitriol on the subject.
I'm finding it very interesting that throughout this thread most people are hammering Obama. Isn't he the golden boy that all the Euros though was the only realistic candidate in the last US election? Those of us who thought someone else should be elected were pretty thoroughly scoffed at by these same posters. Funny how things turn out isn't it?

[Roamy]

Wasn't France the first country that suggested that something be done? Even before Obama decided to refer it to Congress? Wasn't the proof that the chemical attacks provided by the BND (ie the Bundesnachrichtendienst)?

Hmm... news from places that aren't America doesn't seem to exist.


yes I have to give France credit on this one - I should have broken them out on my original post.

furthermore it is the lack of any western bond that will allow Russia to rebound. Putin is threatening a missile shield for Syria. Would never be the case if the western world was united.
So if the world wants to allow chemical weapons, Bio weapons and Nukes to anyone. I think we being the number one target should immediately take steps to isolate. In 20 years you guys will be under sharia law and if not just imagine the chaos coming.

[555-04Q2]

yes I have to give France credit on this one - I should have broken them out on my original post.

furthermore it is the lack of any western bond that will allow Russia to rebound. Putin is threatening a missile shield for Syria. Would never be the case if the western world was united.
So if the world wants to allow chemical weapons, Bio weapons and Nukes to anyone. I think we being the number one target should immediately take steps to isolate. In 20 years you guys will be under sharia law and if not just imagine the chaos coming.

Actually, Putin said that if there is 100% clear proof that Assad launched the CW attack, he would liaise with the West to take some sort of agreed action.

[gadjo_dilo]

As a matter of curiosity, I wonder what your thoughts on the use of other than conventional weapons is. Do you consider all weapons essentially equal - gunpowder, chemical, biological and nuclear? Is there a distinction and, if so, why?
Using any kind of weapon to kill people on purpose is always a horrible thing. No matter if you use a knife, a tomahawk, a gun, an arrow, a ninja sword, or a weapon of mass destuction

[555-04Q2]

Using any kind of weapon to kill people on purpose is always a horrible thing. No matter if you use a knife, a tomahawk, a gun, an arrow, a ninja sword, or a weapon of mass destuction

Correct :up: Dead is dead, killing is killing.

[Roamy]

I'm finding it very interesting that throughout this thread most people are hammering Obama. Isn't he the golden boy that all the Euros though was the only realistic candidate in the last US election? Those of us who thought someone else should be elected were pretty thoroughly scoffed at by these same posters. Funny how things turn out isn't it?

Starter: It is called "Anti American" the TIREs will be faced with two choices Sharia Law or Communism. Putin has a gas (like natural gas) pipeline so far up their ass's that one flip of the switch and they will freeze to death. I imagine most of you are switching to Vodka now if you haven't already :)

[Roamy]

Using any kind of weapon to kill people on purpose is always a horrible thing. No matter if you use a knife, a tomahawk, a gun, an arrow, a ninja sword, or a weapon of mass destuction

Yes however I would rather fight a arrow vs a chem or bio weapon. It is about the masses which is why they are called WMDs

[gadjo_dilo]

Putin has a gas (like natural gas) pipeline so far up their ass's that one flip of the switch and they will freeze to death.
He's a lucky guy since he can freeze us to death by simply using a natural resource.
Other guys use to impress us with their military capacities. Which are very very very expensive. :p

[gadjo_dilo]

Yes however I would rather fight a arrow vs a chem or bio weapon. It is about the masses which is why they are called WMDs

Hmmm.....Shall I understand you wouldn't mind to be attacked and killed? The important thing is how would it happen? :confused:

[Starter]

Using any kind of weapon to kill people on purpose is always a horrible thing. No matter if you use a knife, a tomahawk, a gun, an arrow, a ninja sword, or a weapon of mass destuction
OK, thanks. So no difference between weapons which can kill up to a few people at a time and generally have to be aimed directly at them and weapons which can kill hundreds fairly indiscriminately?

[Malbec]

Hmmm.....Shall I understand you wouldn't mind to be attacked and killed? The important thing is how would it happen? :confused:

A bullet will only kill when its shot at someone. Chemical weapons can persist in an area for hours or days, killing those who were not the intended targets. Biological weapons can persist for months, years or decades and spread far beyond the intended target area. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and cover such a wide area that they are utterly indiscriminate and cause radiation damage to those who survive the initial blast.

The difference in destructive power even over an extended time period between NBCs and conventional weapons is vast, thats why we treat them differently.

[Roamy]

Actually, Putin said that if there is 100% clear proof that Assad launched the CW attack, he would liaise with the West to take some sort of agreed action.

So what is the hold up we should be laying our cards on the table right now to resolve this.

[gadjo_dilo]

Starter and Malbec,
What you say is right but what shall I understand? That a war with conventional weapons is OK? No matter how long it will last and how many victims might be?
Why do western people always look to quantity? Isn't every life precious?
Is it important only when a certain number of people die and when it implies ecological issues?
If so then stop the planet. I want to get off......

[Malbec]

Starter and Malbec,
What you say is right but what shall I understand? That a war with conventional weapons is OK? No matter how long it will last and how many victims might be?
Why do western people always look to quantity? Isn't every life precious?
Is it important only when a certain number of people die and when it implies ecological issues?
If so then stop the planet. I want to get off......

Every life is precious, don't suggest that people who think NBC weapons are somehow different do not treasure life.

Nor is the persistent nature of these weapons about ecology. All the weapons you listed are only lethal at a particular place and time. Persistent weapons affect innocents who may stray into the affected area hours, days or months after an attack. Biological weapons can affect people not even living in the combatant country. There is an island off the coast of the UK where the British experimented on anthrax in WW2. It is still out of bounds for human use more than 70 years later. See the problem? How about the children of women who were pregnant at the time of the A-bombs who were born with mutations, can you seriously say that that inter-generational effect is the same as the kind of killing you talk about?

After the horrors of NBC use in WW1 and WW2 there have been specific international laws to limit their production, possession and use. There are similar laws for the more horrifying conventional weapons too, there are strict rules on what type of bullets any military in the world can use, what type of bombs or landmines. These rules are there for a reason, that is that however terrifying any war of any intensity is, that the behaviour of soldiers must be regulated and limited as much as possible to ensure that any force used is purely to resolve the issue the war is being fought over.

Now I agree that you can point to a million wars recently where noone has tried to regulate anything and brutal things have been allowed to take place. The problem is that there is no overseeing body that can consistently look into violations of these regulations and enforce them. It is left to militarily powerful countries like the US, UK or France to do it and for obvious reasons none of them is keen to get involved in every little fight. Therefore these countries have to pick and choose which wars to get involved in or not.

With Syria it was made clear to them that the West did NOT want to get involved EXCEPT if they used chemical weapons. They did (and although people here are right in saying that there is no 'smoking gun', all the intelligence reports agree that the opposition in Syria do not have the capability to use chemical weapons to the extent they have been). Assad knows how Western democracies work, he lived and trained in Britain and he has a British wife. He knew how far he could push and he still went too far. He knows that if a Western politician draws a clear line in the sand which is then crossed, that they will be compelled to attack for fear that they will be regarded as toothless by their electorate.

Now perhaps you could tell me at what point you think other countries should have intervened, or perhaps you feel that intervention is not warranted at all?

[Starter]

Starter and Malbec,
What you say is right but what shall I understand? That a war with conventional weapons is OK? No matter how long it will last and how many victims might be?
Why do western people always look to quantity? Isn't every life precious?
Is it important only when a certain number of people die and when it implies ecological issues?
If so then stop the planet. I want to get off......
Nice in theory and in a perfect world it's the way it should be. However, when someone else decides to use deadly force to get their way it's kinda hard to remember that. ;)

[Gregor-y]

As a local Law Enforcement Officer would say -

Can you explain your whereabouts between September 1939 until December 1941?
Getting torpedoed on the North Atlantic.


When I visited Bosnia in 2008 the nostalgia about the old Yugolsvia was huge and Tito's portraits were everywhere.
That's not how anyone was talking in 1994, even if the respective leaders were all former Party members. Conflicted place, that was. One of my teachers at the time had been a translator for the Allies and spent a lot of time during and after the war in the country. I haven't really followed much public opinion since 2000 and the main problem of Milosevic was removed from the area.

[donKey jote]

So what is the hold up we should be laying our cards on the table right now to resolve this.

nobody is 100% sure whodunnit, whether it was deliberate, and if it was, what the purpose was...

Bandar bin Sultán: la conexión saudí de las armas químicas en Siria - Público.es

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/357587 (http://www.publico.es/internacional/466358/bandar-bin-sultan-la-conexion-saudi-de-las-armas-quimicas-en-siria)

[gadjo_dilo]

Now perhaps you could tell me at what point you think other countries should have intervened, or perhaps you feel that intervention is not warranted at all?

All I can say is that in my humble opinion this intervention is pointless and can set fire in an already volatile area.
The real Syrian problem is Assad and his resignation not the gas attack. The USA attacks purpose isn't the removal of Al-Assad but a sort of punishment for using those weapons. After that the beligerants will start again the fight, this time only with conventional weapons.
More than that I'm irritated by Americans' hypocrisy who now pretend they're concerned by what happened with Syrian civilians although people are dying there for about 2 years and will continue to die after the ''surgical''american intervention.
I've read tthat the rebels warned USA about possible use of chemical weapons and asked for gas masks but had no response. I've also read that american secret services knew about the gas attacks 3 days before it happened but USA did nothing.

[Roamy]

All I can say is that in my humble opinion this intervention is pointless and can set fire in an already volatile area.
The real Syrian problem is Assad and his resignation not the gas attack. The USA attacks purpose isn't the removal of Al-Assad but a sort of punishment for using those weapons. After that the beligerants will start again the fight, this time only with conventional weapons.
More than that I'm irritated by Americans' hypocrisy who now pretend they're concerned by what happened with Syrian civilians although people are dying there for about 2 years and will continue to die after the ''surgical''american intervention.
I've read tthat the rebels warned USA about possible use of chemical weapons and asked for gas masks but had no response. I've also read that american secret services knew about the gas attacks 3 days before it happened but USA did nothing.

Right and we a going into bomb the crap out of them saying We Know - that would fly about like a lead balloon

[Starter]

.....whether it was deliberate.....
The chances of it not being deliberate on someone's part are vanishingly small.

[donKey jote]

The chances of it not being deliberate on someone's part are vanishingly small.

the Spanish article implies it could have been an "accident" on the part of the rebels, not knowing how to handle the dodgy goods supplied to them by Bandar el Israel ...
...from the link in English :

The Mint Press News report includes first-hand accounts from fighters' families claiming they did not know what the new weapons were, or how to use them. Ababneh quotes "Abu Abdel-Moneim," the father of a rebel fighter,saying: My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,”

Fact is, there don't seem to be many facts anywhere apart from the injured.

[BDunnell]

I'm finding it very interesting that throughout this thread most people are hammering Obama. Isn't he the golden boy that all the Euros though was the only realistic candidate in the last US election? Those of us who thought someone else should be elected were pretty thoroughly scoffed at by these same posters. Funny how things turn out isn't it?

See my earlier reply to anthonyvop. It is perfectly possible to want someone to be elected, not least on the grounds that the other option is absolutely appalling, and then criticise their actions in office. Nothing contradictory or unusual about that. I would have thought you capable of realising this. It's exactly the stance I took regarding Tony Blair in '97, while not voting Labour.

[Ranger]

For the record I would hate to see another international war, despite the supposed atrocities happening in Syria at the moment.

Wars are easy enough to get into but hard to get out of.

[Malbec]

All I can say is that in my humble opinion this intervention is pointless and can set fire in an already volatile area.
The real Syrian problem is Assad and his resignation not the gas attack. The USA attacks purpose isn't the removal of Al-Assad but a sort of punishment for using those weapons. After that the beligerants will start again the fight, this time only with conventional weapons.
More than that I'm irritated by Americans' hypocrisy who now pretend they're concerned by what happened with Syrian civilians although people are dying there for about 2 years and will continue to die after the ''surgical''american intervention.
I've read tthat the rebels warned USA about possible use of chemical weapons and asked for gas masks but had no response. I've also read that american secret services knew about the gas attacks 3 days before it happened but USA did nothing.

Gas masks are useless against sarin, its absorbed through the skin. Also I'm unsure about what you intend with your last sentence, would you have preferred a unilateral American strike to prevent the gas attack on less than solid intelligence? Are you now claiming that there is solid evidence linking the Syrian government with the chemical attack?

You're right, the US is only interested in the fact that chemical weapons were used and wants to deter future use. It doesn't want to get involved in the war itself. Nor does any other country including Romania. In their own way, nor do Russia and China. The US and other countries like the UK and France do feel however that the Geneva treaty regarding the use of chemical weapons should be observed.

It might seem to you that this distinction is somewhat arbitrary and I agree. Bombing civilians is clearly acceptable, gassing them is not.

However the US wants to take action not just to deter the use of chemical weapons by Assad but by any other budding dictator around the world. In essence they want to send out the message that chemical weapons use will not be tolerated so don't even bother developing and producing them. It is a no-tolerance policy towards NBC weapons.

This doesn't make the situation in Syria any less tragic, however noone wants to get involved to stop the fighting (which realistically means hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, lots of expense and even worse, lots of casualties). The Americans don't want to pay that price, nor does anyone else. Would you want to send your son to stop the fighting in Syria? If you care sufficiently about it I presume the answer is yes. I'm going to be frank and say that my answer would be no.

And why is it that America is the sole recipient of all this criticism? How about France? How about Russia and Iran that supply the Syrian state with arms, ammunition and men? Without their support the Assad regime would have crumbled a year or so ago, isn't that the solution you would have preferred?

[Rollo]

I'm finding it very interesting that throughout this thread most people are hammering Obama. Isn't he the golden boy that all the Euros though was the only realistic candidate in the last US election? Those of us who thought someone else should be elected were pretty thoroughly scoffed at by these same posters. Funny how things turn out isn't it?

There's a major difference between 2013 and 2001 or 2003 though when Congress authorised force against Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Congress 107 was:
House of Reps: 222R - 210D
Senate: 50R - 50D

Congress 108 was:
House of Reps: 222R - 209D
Senate: 51R - 49D

In both cases, unlike 2013 there wasn't a hostile Congress because the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency. That meant that passage for bills of supply and to authorise force went through pretty much went through on the nod.
It's mainly pure mechanics that Obama is hamstrung and the houses are hostile.

The simple fact of the matter is that had Romney been president, this sort of discussion wouldn't have happened at all. Congress 112 or 113 would have rubber-stamped an authorisation bill if he'd wanted it.

As it was:
Mitt Romney: arm the Syrian rebels | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels)
"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines,"
- Mitt Romney, as quoted The Grauniad 8th Oct 2012.

[Starter]

There's a major difference between 2013 and 2001 or 2003 though when Congress authorised force against Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Where did I say anything about either of those places?


In both cases, unlike 2013 there wasn't a hostile Congress because the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency. That meant that passage for bills of supply and to authorise force went through pretty much went through on the nod.
It's mainly pure mechanics that Obama is hamstrung and the houses are hostile.

The simple fact of the matter is that had Romney been president, this sort of discussion wouldn't have happened at all. Congress 112 or 113 would have rubber-stamped an authorisation bill if he'd wanted it.
Your count is off. The Democrats control the Senate.


As it was:
Mitt Romney: arm the Syrian rebels | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels)
"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines,"
- Mitt Romney, as quoted The Grauniad 8th Oct 2012.
Arming one side or the other is not quite the same thing as participating yourself.

Not to mention that nothing in your post addresses what you have quoted.

[airshifter]

There's a major difference between 2013 and 2001 or 2003 though when Congress authorised force against Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Congress 107 was:
House of Reps: 222R - 210D
Senate: 50R - 50D

Congress 108 was:
House of Reps: 222R - 209D
Senate: 51R - 49D

In both cases, unlike 2013 there wasn't a hostile Congress because the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency. That meant that passage for bills of supply and to authorise force went through pretty much went through on the nod.
It's mainly pure mechanics that Obama is hamstrung and the houses are hostile.

The simple fact of the matter is that had Romney been president, this sort of discussion wouldn't have happened at all. Congress 112 or 113 would have rubber-stamped an authorisation bill if he'd wanted it.

As it was:
Mitt Romney: arm the Syrian rebels | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels)
"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines,"
- Mitt Romney, as quoted The Grauniad 8th Oct 2012.

In the Iraq resolution the likes of 40% of Democrats in the house voted "for" and in the Senate the majority of Democrats voted "for". Not everything is based on party lines. IIRC the Democrats controlled the Senate, not the Republicans.

[Starter]

More than that I'm irritated by Americans' hypocrisy who now pretend they're concerned by what happened with Syrian civilians although people are dying there for about 2 years and will continue to die after the ''surgical''american intervention.
I've read tthat the rebels warned USA about possible use of chemical weapons and asked for gas masks but had no response. I've also read that american secret services knew about the gas attacks 3 days before it happened but USA did nothing.
Are you now saying that America should get involved? I had though you were against all that. More to the point, why should America get involved? Its not even in our hemisphere. Why don't the European countries do something? The Asian countries? Why doesn't Romania? Either you want America to play world policeman or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Not sure where you read about American spy agencies knowing about the gas in advance, but I hadn't heard anything like that. Can you point me toward a (reliable) source?

[555-04Q2]

So what is the hold up we should be laying our cards on the table right now to resolve this.

What's the rush? The world watched for 2 years and did nothing. Why the sudden haste?!

[555-04Q2]

Starter and Malbec,
What you say is right but what shall I understand? That a war with conventional weapons is OK? No matter how long it will last and how many victims might be?
Why do western people always look to quantity? Isn't every life precious?
Is it important only when a certain number of people die and when it implies ecological issues?
If so then stop the planet. I want to get off......

It must be stated that the USA are the last nation who should comment on WMD. Think WW2 in Japan. Say no more.

[Spafranco]

This catastrophe is going to happen and the hypocrites like Lieberman, Rumsfeld, Matlin, Boner I mean Boener want an exit strategy.
Why is our Government especially the right side so hypocritical? Do they believe that people forget easily so they come up with something that they themselves were so adamantly against. Recall the Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter all shrieking in unison...cut and run.

Are there a few sane people left that can help us understand the mentality that seems so pervasive on the right. Don't people think for themselves?
This shambles and the arguments are so unified on one side it reminds me of lemmings. Sad, but true.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Hey it's the Democratic administration going to war this time, not the Republican one. Republicans are no angels, we all know that, but your invective is addressed to the wrong people in this case.

I also start thinking that there's no reason behind these U.S. military interventions. That's just a habit; that's what Americans do without even bothering to think about it. I mean, the British go to pub; Italians go too opera; Americans go to war.

[Spafranco]

Hey it's the Democratic administration going to war this time, not the Republican one. Republicans are no angels, we all know that, but your invective is addressed to the wrong people in this case.

I also start thinking that there's no reason behind these U.S. military interventions. That's just a habit; that's what Americans do without even bothering to think about it. I mean, the British go to pub; Italians go too opera; Americans go to war.

Rudy, if you are addressing me and read what I have stated, it is clear that am referring to the Republican side who , when asked about timetables etcetera told us there was none and that it was ridiculous to ask. Now, when the current president sent the his plan to Congress, all we heard of were exit strategies. That was the point I was making. Living in Belarus you may not be getting the same news.

[Gregor-y]

I think given the continuing situation in Libya and internal bickering over our intervention there mostly caused by intransigent Republicans the President didn't want to get involved with Syria, but also planted that red line to show there are limits to acceptable behavior for any country. Chemical weapons were a pretty obvious line and I'd be very interested to see what exactly provoked Syrian commanders to cross it, with or without Assad's direction.

[donKey jote]

Syrian commanders

major assumption there... ;)

[Gregor-y]

If you trust any Russian reporter that hasn't been murdered, I guess. :p

[Koz]

Anyone else watch the G20 press conferences?


I would say that the majority of the room is comfortable with our conclusion that Assad, the Assad government, was responsible for their use. Obviously, this is disputed by President Putin, but if you polled the leaders last night, I’m confident that you’d get a majority who said it is most likely, we are pretty confident, that the Assad regime used it.

Comfortable with, most likely, pretty confident?

I guess the evidence wasn't really all that 100% conclusive and undeniable?

[anthonyvop]

It must be stated that the USA are the last nation who should comment on WMD. Think WW2 in Japan. Say no more.


So?

[Spafranco]

So?

Akin to the fact that you do not believe waterboarding is not torture. So in effect, answering the statement posed by your question would be moot.

[Roamy]

the world has spoke gas em!!!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Syria is a waste of time, and as much as I dislike Obama, he is in a no win situation here. The reality is, if they don't go do something about WMD use, it tells other dictators that the world will look the other way, and if he DOES do intervene, he cannot get the political capital to commit the USA to another invasion which realistically would be the only way to in theory stop the blood shed but it would involve a different blood shed, and likely get the USA nothing but grief. The Europeans do what they always do, wring their hands and pretend they are commited to make peace in the Middle East when they don't, the Brits in this case are likely doing the right thing, and everyone else is pretending how awful it is while picking sides. It is a shit sandwich and there are only losers in this one....

[airshifter]

I would bet that Kerry is regretting his tongue in cheek comment now. But Obama is running with it. Everyone knows that accounting for and controlling an arsenal of chemical weapons is a no brainer right? Just walk in right through that pesky little civil war and grab them.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Kerry threw his boss the lifeline when he needed it. Obama drove himself to the corner when he committed to do something about Syria even as he had no motivation to do anything. Now he's off the hook as the talks of controlling the weapons can go on indefinitely.

[BDunnell]

Kerry threw his boss the lifeline when he needed it. Obama drove himself to the corner when he committed to do something about Syria even as he had no motivation to do anything. Now he's off the hook as the talks of controlling the weapons can go on indefinitely.

I think that's a very fair summation. However, those saying the US has been 'outfoxed', or similar, by Russia I think are being melodramatic. If the US had put forward the same proposal as have the Russians, it would have been rejected out of hand, not least by the Russians themselves.

[BleAivano]

Kerry threw his boss the lifeline when he needed it. Obama drove himself to the corner when he committed to do something about Syria even as he had no motivation to do anything. Now he's off the hook as the talks of controlling the weapons can go on indefinitely.

I think that's a very fair summation. However, those saying the US has been 'outfoxed', or similar, by Russia I think are being melodramatic. If the US had put forward the same proposal as have the Russians, it would have been rejected out of hand, not least by the Russians themselves.

I wouldn't be too surprised if this is a "joint decision" from both the USA and Russia but
giving the "credit" to Russia so that the USA can go for it without Obama looking weak.

[Starter]

Kerry threw his boss the lifeline when he needed it. Obama drove himself to the corner when he committed to do something about Syria even as he had no motivation to do anything. Now he's off the hook as the talks of controlling the weapons can go on indefinitely.
Agree that Kerry saved Obama's bacon on this one. Perhaps there will be a payback in the next election cycle. Bye, bye Hillary?

[555-04Q2]

It must be stated that the USA are the last nation who should comment on WMD. Think WW2 in Japan. Say no more.


So?

I thought my post was pretty straight forward to understand and didn't need any clarification!!!

[airshifter]

Kerry threw his boss the lifeline when he needed it. Obama drove himself to the corner when he committed to do something about Syria even as he had no motivation to do anything. Now he's off the hook as the talks of controlling the weapons can go on indefinitely.

Agree that even if it was accidental it probably helped the President short term.

I don't see it being realistic though. Securing the weapons involves putting people on the ground in the midst of the unrest. Even without fighting going on it could be a very daunting task to control an arsenal of unknown size. There are people from both parties wanting to launch strikes, so I think Obama will take some grief regardless of how he approaches it.

If nothing else this will delay any strikes hopefully. The UN is expected to release it's report on the chemical weapons by next week, but AFAIK they are still just determining IF chemical attacks took place. It's scary to think that any control of the weapons would most likely use the UN.... they seem very behind the curve on what is going on.

And I think in that respect Obama will be screwed either way. He has promised no "boots on the ground", but if a UN mission doesn't have the US involved some will be suspect, and other countries not might provide security for the people that go in to secure the weapons.



No matter how you look at it, still a complex task. I hope it ends without US strikes. I hope even more than maybe the international attention and ongoing actions bring things to the table to end or at least slow the deaths going on. Civil war is an ugly thing that in most cases involves too many innocents in the mix of the mess.

[airshifter]

In the latest developments, Ban Ki-moon is blasting Assad and calling out the UN Security Council for action. However it appears that thus far the UN has only agreed to overwhelming evidence of chemical use, and no determination as to pointing fingers with certainty over who did it.

[[url]http://news.yahoo.com/un-report-confirm-syria-chemical-weapons-164311649.html/url]

I think at this point it's safe to say that any use for the UN is very minimal. All they seem to be able to do is state that civil war is hell, and can't do anything to stop it. If we have evidence of gross humanitarian violations why do the chemicals even really matter if nobody is going to take action to stop what is going on?

[airshifter]

Well they have finally made it official.

The UN has declared in a report that chemicals were used in Syria!

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856&Cr=syria&Cr1=



In other related news, the UN is now investigating the theory that the world is in fact round and not flat. An official statement involving this should be expected before the turn of the century. It should be noted that the report will only determine if the earth is flat or round, not who made it that shape. :crazy:

[Rudy Tamasz]

There's also some new info available on who fights who in Syria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html


Nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria are now aligned to jihadist or hardline Islamist groups according to a new analysis of factions in the country's civil war.

[Rollo]

Obama is regretting appointing John McEnroe as chief weapons inspector.... apparently he found some, but THEY CAN NOT BE SYRIA'S

[BDunnell]

In other related news, the UN is now investigating the theory that the world is in fact round and not flat. An official statement involving this should be expected before the turn of the century. It should be noted that the report will only determine if the earth is flat or round, not who made it that shape. :crazy:

Do you not believe it's necessary to ensure the veracity of such reports before deciding on a course of action, then?

[Gregor-y]

Obama is regretting appointing John McEnroe as chief weapons inspector.... apparently he found some, but THEY CAN NOT BE SYRIA'S
Of course not. Aren't they all from Russia originally?

[donKey jote]

Obama is regretting appointing John McEnroe as chief weapons inspector.... apparently he found some, but THEY CAN NOT BE SYRIA'S

^^like teehee

[A FONDO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_al-Assad

[Gregor-y]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_al-Assad
They have got good PR. Top Gear filmed there right before the rebellion, too, and seemed to have a lot of enthusiasm for the country though they didn't name the President or the constant state of emergency the country was in.

[Koz]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/1 ... 9O20130918 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/uk-syria-crisis-qaeda-idUKBRE98H19O20130918)

Assad is steadily becoming the lesser evil here. His regime is the only instrument that can stop the radicalization of Syria.

It is time to stop thinking about arming the rebels - the Saudis are doing enough for their radical pals, we should start praying that Turkey survives into the next decade.